/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220321.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, March 21, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 51
Headlines
3M CO: Fleming Sues Over Injury From PFAS Contaminated Water Supply
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Watts Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: Appenzeller Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Aylsworth Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Faces Ryan Suit Over Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Myers Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Neely Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Perez Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Seeks Scheduling Order for Evidentiary Hearing
ACE AMERICAN: MSP Recovery Files Bid for Class Certification
ACE HARDWARE: Dhaliwal Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
ADVANTAGE PLUS: Rule 16 Scheduling Order Entered in Garrett Suit
ALASKA AIR: Faces Flight Attendants' Labor Suit in California
AMAZON RETAIL: Fields Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
AMAZON WEB: Dorian Sues Over Illegal Biometric Data Collection
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Marcus Corp. Antirust Suit in New York
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Ruling Granting Arbitration Upheld
AMY PECHACEK: Ct. Amends Class Cert. Deadlines in Bemke Suit
APPLE INC: Grabowski Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
ARANDAS BAKERY: Galvez Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages
ARIES BLINDS: Fails to Provide Proper Overtime Wages, Liscano Says
ASTROTECH CORP: Faces Securities Suit in Del. Ch.
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Rapisura Labor Suit Goes to E.D. California
CANADA GOOSE: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Lee Suit
CAPITAL ONE: General Pretrial Management Entered in Goldstein
CEDAR REALTY: Monteverde & Associates Files Securities Class Suit
CENTRAL COAST: Bid to Certify Class in Garcia Suit Granted in Part
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Dismissed from PFAS Contamination Suit
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces Suit in Ohio Over PFAS Contamination
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces Suit Over Water Contamination
CHICAGO, IL: Court Certifies Class of Pedestrians in ACBMC Suit
CONCIERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Lucas Files Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
CONSOL ENERGY: ERISA Suit Over Denied Benefits Filed in S.D.W.V.
CORE CIVIC: Dillon Bid for Class Certification Tossed
COVETRUS INC: Faces Securities Suit in E.D. N.Y.
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Faces Shareholder Suit in E.D. Mich.
CREDIT BUREAU: California Court Certifies 2 Classes in Kang Suit
CUSIP GLOBAL: Dinosaur Fin'l. Sues Over CUSIP Use Market Monopoly
DAVITA INC: Faces Antitrust Suit in Illinois
DAVITA INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in D. Colo.
DAVITA INC: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action
DE LONGHI: Ghaznavi Sues Over Machine's Unlawful Repair Restriction
DELTA AIR LINES: Antitrust Suits Consolidated
DPS EAST: Faces Best Suit Over Technicians' Unpaid Overtime
E.I. DU PONT: Settles Leach Water Contamination Case
EAT DRINK: Certification of Collective Action Sought
FARMERS INSURANCE: White Sues Over Excessive Overdraft Fees
FCA US: Johnson Sues Over Faulty Side Airbag Inflatable Curtains
FINANCIAL INDEMNITY: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Bhasker Suit
FLOWERS FOODS: April 26 Continuance for Class Cert Hearing Sought
FRANKLIN COUNTY, PA: Class Certification Denial in Doe Suit Vacated
GAINWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Ramos Labor Code Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
GEICO: Conditional Certification Bids Must Filed within 90 days
GEICO: Russo Files Conditional Certification Bid
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces ERISA Suit in Massachusetts
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS: Montague Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
GOOGLE LLC: Left Field Sues Over Unauthorized Button and Webpages
HALAL GUYS: Hegazy Seeks Food Servers, Vendors' Unpaid Wages
HONEYWELL INT'L: Shareholder Suit Settlement Deal Awaits Final Nod
IMEDIA BRANDS: Laura Duffek Files Bid for Class Certification
INCYTE CORP: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Novartis
JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: Suit Seeks to Certify Non-Pregnant Class
JUUL LABS: American Preparatory Academy Sues Over Nicotine Crisis
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Center Line Suit Says
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Filer School Suit Says
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Grace School Suit Says
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Uintah School Suit Claims
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Sauquoit Says
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, West Ada Says
JUUL LABS: Eden Central Sues Over E-Cigarette Addiction in N.Y.
JUUL LABS: Faces Alamogordo Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Faces COSSA Academy Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Faces Wayne County Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Granite School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads
JUUL LABS: Kuna School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
JUUL LABS: Leland Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Michigan
JUUL LABS: Parma School Suit Claims E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
JUUL LABS: Payette School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
JUUL LABS: Prairie Heights Suit Alleges Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Solvay Union Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign
JUUL LABS: Thermalito Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Cal.
KENTUCKY: Hammond Bid to File Amended Complaint Tossed
KLLM TRANSPORT: Nieves Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
LOCAL IN MEMPHIS: Leopard Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
MATTHEW DAUS: TLC-Licensed Drivers Get Class Certification
MDL 2818: Class Certification Sought in GM Suit
MERRITT HOSPITALITY: Gonzalez Labor Suit Goes to S.D. California
MEWBOURNE OIL: Hay Creek Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
MFT TRUCKING: Cruz Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Summary Judgment in Rakestraw Suit Affirmed
NEVADA: Court Denies Smith's Bid for Copy of Harris Class Complaint
NEW YORK, NY: Casis Suit Seeks Proper Overtime Pay
NEXTERA ENERGY: Branscomb Seeks Executive Assistants' Unpaid OT
NOVANT HEALTH: Darroux Class Suit Removed to W.D. North Carolina
NOVO NORDISK: Chaires Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Hearing for Rule 23 Class Cert. Sought
PJ OPS: Hearing on Edwards' Bid for Certify Class Set for April 21
RICE DRILLING: Bid for Leave to File Docs Under Seal OK'd
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Crews Sues Over False IPO-Related Fin'l. Reports
ROTHMANS BENSON & HEDGES: McDermid Class Suit Pending in Canada
ROTHMANS BENSON & HEDGES: Semple Class Suit Pending in Canada
SAGE MIDDLEBURG: Branham Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Dahlquist Sues Over Deceptive Smart Watch Ad
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: De Bernardi's $503K Class Deal Wins Final Okay
SETTON PISTACHIO: Second Amended Bid for Class Status Filed
SIMPLY ORANGE: S.D. New York Tosses Turnipseed Suit With Prejudice
SKECHERS USA: Class Settlement in Wilk Suit Wins Final Approval
SOCLEAN INC: Bradley Consumer Suit Moved From D.N.H. to W.D. Pa.
SOUTHEASTRANS INC: Jones Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
SURGICAL CARE: Pena Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: FWK Sues Over Copaxone Market Monopoly
TGI FRIDAY'S: McCollum Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
THOMSON REUTERS: Stipulation to Amend Case Schedule Filed in Brooks
TINDER INC: Judgment Issued After Kim's Class Deal Wins Final Nod
TK PROMOTIONS: Carracedo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
UKG INC: Fails to Protect Employees' Personal Info, Bente Says
UNITED SHORE: Bhasin Suit Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim
UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Flips Reversal of Fazaga Claims' Dismissal
UTGR INC: Barton Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
VARSITY BRANDS: Wins Bid for Protective Order vs American Spirit
VERO BEACH, FL: Class Status Bid Hearing Set for April 12
VISION SOLAR: Oral Argument in Smith Set for April 5
VXL ENTERPRISES: Duff FLSA Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California
WALMART INC: Van der Steeg Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to E.D.N.Y.
WEXFORD MEDICAL: Some Calderson Claims Remain After Prelim. Review
WHOLE FOODS: Foster Balks at Mislabeled Fish Oil Softgel Product
WILDCAT INVESTMENTS: Foley Files Conditional Certification Bid
WOODBRIDGE LIQUIDATION: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Suit
ZUFFA LLC: Bloom Balks at Disclosure of Personal Info to Facebook
*********
3M CO: Fleming Sues Over Injury From PFAS Contaminated Water Supply
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTAN FLEMING, BREANNA MCGUIRE, MARLENE FLEMING, and PATSY MOON,
individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY, (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company) 3M COMPANY, INC., 3M COMPANY GUIN INDUSTRIAL
LANDFILL; CITY OF GUIN WATER WORKS & SEWER BOARD; BEN HIGHTOWER
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; and BENJAMIN M. HIGHTOWER, Defendants, Case
No. 6:22-cv-00285-LSC (N.D. Ala., March 4, 2022) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of similarly situated property
owners and other consumers of the water supplied by The City of
Guin, Alabama, Water Works & Sewer Board, who have been harmed by
the disposal of solid waste and discharge of wastewater containing
perfluorochemicals (PFAS) in Marion County, Alabama, by the
Defendant, which causes pollution of ground and surface waters.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs have suffered illnesses
and other health problems as a result of their exposure to PFAS and
other toxic chemicals in the water provided by GWWSB, including but
not limited to, irritation of the eyes, nose, mouth, and throat;
skin rash and burning of the skin; some have developed asthma and
other diseases, and some have been diagnosed with cancer.
Further, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' discharges
into the Purgatory Creek from their manufacturing facilities and
waste disposal operations upstream from the water intake for GWWSB,
the water supplied by GWWSB to Representative Plaintiffs and other
Members of the proposed Class was and is contaminated with PFAS,
and related chemicals, says the suit.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anthony C. Ifediba, Esq.
John Benochi, Esq.
IFEDIBA LAW GROUP, P.C.
1220 16th Street South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 933-1515
E-mail: aifediba@ifedibalaw.com
jbenochi@ifedibalaw.com
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Watts Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE L. WATTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00785-RMG
(D.S.C., March 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition due to
inadequate warning about the products' danger. He relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products,
says the suit.
As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer and
bladder cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Appenzeller Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND APPENZELLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00824-RMG (D.S.C., March 11, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence,
strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraud by
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform
Voidable Transactions Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and commenced
on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via a
left partial nephrectomy.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Aylsworth Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN AYLSWORTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00830-RMG (D.S.C., March 11, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence,
strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraud by
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform
Voidable Transactions Act.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, he was exposed to toxic chemicals and was
diagnosed with testicular cancer and commenced on-going medical
treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via a right
orchiectomy.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Faces Ryan Suit Over Complications From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER RYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00794-RMG (D.S.C., March 10, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence,
strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraud by
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform
Voidable Transactions Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid cancer and commenced
on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via a
thyroidectomy.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Myers Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE MYERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00828-RMG (D.S.C., March 11, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence,
strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraud by
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violations of the
Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and the California Unfair
Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, the suit says.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis and commenced
and continues on-going medical treatment.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Neely Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACK NEELY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00795-RMG (D.S.C., March 10, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence,
strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraud by
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violations of the
Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and California Unfair Competition
Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and commenced
on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via a
right nephrectomy.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Perez Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00826-RMG (D.S.C., March 11, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence,
strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraud by
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform
Voidable Transactions Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and commenced
on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via a
left partial nephrectomy.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Seeks Scheduling Order for Evidentiary Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ST. CLAIR COUNTY
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. ACADIA HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC., et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00988 (M.D. Tenn.), the Defendants ask the
Court to enter an order scheduling, at a time convenient to the
Court and the parties, a short evidentiary hearing so that
Defendants' expert, Lucy Allen, may explain her opinions and the
underlying evidence conclusively demonstrating that the
misrepresentations Plaintiffs allege about Acadia's operations in
the United States during the time period of April 30, 2014 through
November 15, 2018 did not impact Acadia's stock price and,
therefore, cannot support certification of a class for that time
period.
Acadia Healthcare is an American provider of behavioral healthcare
services. It operates a network of over 225 facilities across the
United States and Puerto Rico.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 1, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37qNV3l at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
Danielle S. Myers, Esq.
David C. Walton, Esq.
Darryl J. Alvarado, Esq.
J. Marco Janoski Gray, Esq.
Ting H. Liu, Esq.
Timothy Alexander Benwa Folkerth, Esq..
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2203
E-mail: danim@rgrdlaw.com
davew@csgrr.com
dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com
mjanoski@rgrdlaw.com
tliu@rgrdlaw.com
afolkerth@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Jerry E. Martin
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC
Bank of America Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
- and -
Michael Bauman, Esq.
PITTA LLP
120 Broadway, 28th Floor
New York, NY 10271
Telephone: (212) 652-3890
Facsimile: (212) 652-3891
E-mail: mbauman@pittalaw.com
- and -
Justin J. Lannoye, Esq.
DOWD, BLOCH. BENNETT, CERVONE
AUERBACH & YOKICH LLP
8 South Michigan Avenue, 19th Floor
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 372-1361
Facsimile: (312) 372-6599
E-mail: jlannoye@laboradvocates.com
- and -
Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
79 Alfred Street
Detroit, MI 48201
Telephone: (313) 578-1200
E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com
- and -
Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Regina M. Calcaterra, Esq.
Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
WOLF, HALDENSTEIN, ADLER, FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-4600
E-mail: guiney@whafh.com
donovan@whafh.com
calcaterra@whafh.com
burt@whafh.com
- and -
Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
E-mail: Bramlett Law Offices
P O Box 150734
Nashville, TN 37215
Telephone: (615) 248-2828
E-mail: pknashlaw@aol.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Steven A. Riley, Esq.
Milton S. McGee, III, Esq.
Elizabeth O. Gonser, Esq.
RILEY WARNOCK & JACOBSON, PLC
1906 West End Avenue
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 320-3700
Facsimile: (615) 320-3737
E-mail: sriley@rwjplc.com
tmcgee@rwjplc.com
egonser@rwjplc.com
- and -
Jessica P. Corley, Esq.
Lisa R. Bugni, Esq.
Ronni D. Solomon, Esq.
Brandon R. Keel, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 572-4600
E-mail: jpcorley@kslaw.com
lbugni@kslaw.com
rsolomon@kslaw.com
bkeel@kslaw.com
ACE AMERICAN: MSP Recovery Files Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:17-cv-23749-PAS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying a class comprised of:
"All Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs) and downstream
entities that provide benefits under Medicare Part C, in the
United States of America and its territories, who made
conditional payments as secondary payers for medical items
and services on behalf of their beneficiaries who had entered
into settlements with the Defendant under a third-party
insurance coverage, such as bodily injury insurance
coverage."
This class action is brought on behalf of MAOs and downstream
entities that made conditional payments for accident-related
medical claims on behalf of their Medicare beneficiaries, who
entered into settlements with Defendant under a third-party bodily
injury ("BI") policy. These conditional payments made by MAOs are
conditioned on reimbursement by a primary plan.
But for years, the Defendant has disregarded its primary payer
obligations, causing MAOs and downstream entities, like Plaintiff's
assignor in this case, to foot the bill. The Defendant's systematic
and uniform failure to repay Medicare liens -- such as the alleged
R.C. claim -- warrants certification of this class action.
Hygea -- the Plaintiff's assignor -- was financially responsible
for the unreimbursed secondary payment made on behalf of R.C. Hygea
was one of the largest independent physician associations ("IPA")
in Florida, managing the care for 30,000 Medicare beneficiaries.
This is an ascertainable and objectively defined cla
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 1,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I4ZEBh
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andres Rivero, Esq.
Amanda McGovern, Esq.
Alan H. Rolnick, Esq.
David L. Daponte, Esq.
RIVERO MESTRE LLP
2525 Ponce de León Blvd., Suite 1000
Miami, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 445-2500
Facsimile: (305) 445-2505
E-mail: arivero@riveromestre.com
amcgovern@riveromestre.com
arolnick@riveromestre.com
ddaponte@riveromestre.com
npuentes@riveromestre.com
- and -
Francesco Zincone, Esq.
Eduardo Bertran Esq.
J. Alfredo Armas, Esq.
ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
4960 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 206
Miami, Florida 33155
Telephone: (305) 461-5100
Facsimile: (786) 221-2903
E-mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com
ebertran@armaslaw.com
alfred@armaslaw.com
- and -
John H. Ruiz, Esq.
Charles E. Whorton, Esq.
MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
2701 S. LeJeune Road, 10th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 614-2222
E-mail: cwhorton@msprecoverylawfirm.com
jruiz@msprecovery.com
ACE HARDWARE: Dhaliwal Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled AMOLAK DHALIWAL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION, DOUG
WOODMANSEE, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
S-CV-0047279, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Placer, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on March 10, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-00446-TLN-KJN to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code including failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods,
failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay all wages due upon
termination of employment, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.
Ace Hardware Corporation is an American hardware retailers'
cooperative based in Oak Brook, Illinois. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brooke Sikora Purcell, Esq.
Luis Arias, Esq.
Shayla M. Griffin, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
Telephone: (415) 434-9100
Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
E-mail: bpurcell@sheppardmullin.com
larias@sheppardmullin.com
smgriffin@sheppardmullin.com
ADVANTAGE PLUS: Rule 16 Scheduling Order Entered in Garrett Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cecille Garrett v.
Advantage Plus Credit Reporting Incorporated, Case No.
2:21-cv-02082-DJH (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Diane J. Humetewa
entered a Rule 16 Scheduling Order as follows:
1. Initial disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(a), if not already exchanged, shall be
exchanged no later than March 4, 2022. The parties shall
file with the Clerk a Notice of Initial Disclosure, rather
than copies of the actual disclosures.
2. The deadline for joining parties, amending pleadings, and
filing supplemental pleadings is 60 days from the date of
this Order.
3. Depositions shall be limited to seven hours each as Rule
30(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides.
The number of depositions and interrogatories are governed
by the limits in Rules 30, 31, and 33 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
4. Each party is limited to depositions and Deadline for
Completion of Fact Discovery.
5. The deadline for completing pre-class certification
discovery, including discovery by subpoena, shall be
August 1, 2022. The deadline for completing post-class
certification discovery, including discovery by subpoena,
shall be January 15, 2023. To ensure compliance with this
deadline, the following rules shall apply covery disputes
after the deadline for completion of expert discovery.
6. The Plaintiff shall file its Motion for Class
Certification by no later than October 15, 2022.
7. Dispositive motions shall be filed no later than May 19,
2023. Such motions must comply in all respects with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules.
8. All parties and their counsel shall meet in person and
engage in good faith settlement talks no later than 30
days after the Court rules on Class Certification. No
later than five working days after the deadline set forth
in the preceding sentence, the parties shall file a joint
report on settlement talks executed by or on behalf of all
counsel.
9. Deadline for Notice of Readiness for Pretrial Conference.
The Plaintiff(s) shall notify the Court that the parties
are ready for scheduling of a Final Pretrial Conference
pursuant to Rule 16(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t3KI1R at no extra charge.[CC]
ALASKA AIR: Faces Flight Attendants' Labor Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Air Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a class action
lawsuit was filed against the company alleging violations of
California and City of San Francisco wage and hour laws.
In 2015, three flight attendants filed a class action lawsuit
seeking to represent all Virgin America flight attendants for
damages based on alleged violations of California and City of San
Francisco wage and hour laws. The court certified a class of
approximately 1,800 flight attendants in November 2016.
In July 2018, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment, finding Virgin America and Alaska Airlines, as a
successor-in-interest to Virgin America, responsible for various
damages and penalties sought by the class members.
On February 4, 2019, the Court entered final judgment against
Virgin America and Alaska Airlines in the amount of approximately
$78 million. It did not award injunctive relief against Alaska
Airlines. In February 2021, an appellate court reversed portions of
the lower court decision and significantly reduced the judgment,
again without awarding injunctive relief against Alaska.
Alaska Air Group is a Delaware corporation that operates two
airlines, Alaska and Horizon.
AMAZON RETAIL: Fields Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ERICK FIELDS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AMAZON RETAIL LLC and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. 30-2022-01244500-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on March 10,
2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:22-cv-00377 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay all
wages and minimum wages, failure to provide compliant meal and rest
break premiums, failure to provide suitable facilities for meal and
rest breaks, failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage
statements, waiting time penalties, failure to provide suitable
seating, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unfair
business practices.
Amazon Retail LLC is a retail company with its principal place of
business in Seattle, Washington. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Lauren M. Blas, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: lblasc@gibsondunn.com
- and –
Megan Cooney, Esq.
Katie M. Magallanes, Esq.
Jessica M. Pearigen, Esq.
Jordan E. Johnson, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
3161 Michelson Drive
Irvine, CA 92612-4412
Telephone: (949) 451-3800
Facsimile: (949) 451-4220
E-mail: mcooneyc@gibsondunn.com
kmagallanes@gibsondunn.com
jpearigen@gibsondunn.com
jjohnson@gibsondunn.com
AMAZON WEB: Dorian Sues Over Illegal Biometric Data Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACINDA DORIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00269-JCC (W.D. Wash.,
March 7, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged illegal conduct
of collecting, storing, and possessing Plaintiff's and the Class'
biometric identifiers and biometric information in violation of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Amazon Web Services is one of the largest providers of cloud
computing services that offers customers over 200 cloud-based
services from data centers globally. One of its services is a
facial recognition program called Amazon Rekognition. Rekognition
uses machine vision and algorithmic classification techniques to
map human facial geometry and analyze the resulting data to, for
example, check whether two photographs depict the same individual.
According to the complaint, because Rekognition is a
behind-the-scenes service for businesses, consumers, including
Plaintiff, are largely unaware that when they use their favorite
mobile app or online service to verify their identities, AWS is
actually collecting and storing their biometric data.
The complaint seeks an order (i) declaring that AWS' conduct
violates the BIPA; (ii) requiring AWS to cease the unlawful
activities alleged herein; and (iii) awarding statutory damages to
Plaintiff and the proposed Class.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wright A. Noel, Esq.
CARSON NOEL PLLC
20 Sixth Avenue NE
Issaquah, WA 98027
Telephone: (425) 837-4717
Facsimile: (425) 837-5396
E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com
- and -
Jay Edelson, Esq.
David I. Mindell, Esq.
J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
Schuyler Ufkes, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
dmindell@edelson.com
ewadescott@edelson.com
sufkes@edelson.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
- and -
Christopher R. Reilly, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 679-9006
E-mail: creilly@bursor.com
- and -
Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
CARNEY BATES AND PULLIAM, PLLC
519 West 7th Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Marcus Corp. Antirust Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that the company was
named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in the
Southern District of New York in July 2004, and subsequently
transferred to the Eastern District of New York, captioned "The
Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co., et al.," in which the
plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying arrangement between
certain of the company's charge cards and credit cards in violation
of various state and federal laws. The plaintiffs in this action
seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages.
American Express is an integrated payments company based in New
York.
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Ruling Granting Arbitration Upheld
----------------------------------------------------
American Express Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a November 22, 2021
decision was affirmed on appeal over the company's January 15, 2020
motion to compel arbitration of claims brought by merchants who
accept American Express and to dismiss claims of merchants who do
not was granted. This is with regards to a consolidated class
action that was filed against the company alleging that provisions
in the company's merchant agreements prohibits merchants from
differentially surcharging its cards or steering a customer to use
another network's card.
A putative merchant class action in the Eastern District of New
York, consolidated in 2011 and collectively captioned "In re:
American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II),"
alleged that provisions in the company's merchant agreements
prohibiting merchants from differentially surcharging its cards or
steering a customer to use another network's card or another type
of general-purpose card ("anti-steering" and "non-discrimination"
contractual provisions) violate U.S. antitrust laws.
On January 15, 2020, the company's motion to compel arbitration of
claims brought by merchants who accept American Express and to
dismiss claims of merchants who do not was granted. On November 22,
2021, that decision was affirmed on appeal.
American Express is an integrated payments company based in New
York.
AMY PECHACEK: Ct. Amends Class Cert. Deadlines in Bemke Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brian Bemke, et al., v.
Amy Pechacek, Case No. 3:21-cv-00560 (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge
Stephen L. Crocker entered an order granting the Defendant's motion
to determine liability before it determines class certification.
The schedule is amended as follows:
-- The deadlines to disclose class experts are struck.
-- The Plaintiffs must disclose their liability experts not
later than May 6, 2022, defendants must disclose their
liability experts not later than June 17, 2022.
-- Dispositive motions are due by July 1, 2022, with 21/10
response briefing.
-- The Plaintiffs must disclose their experts on class
certification by November 4, 2022, defendants must disclose
any such experts by December 5, 2022.
-- The Plaintiffs must file their class certification motion not
later than January 9, 2023, with 21/10 response/reply
briefing. For now, the remainder of the schedule remains in
place.
The suit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities
Act.[CC]
APPLE INC: Grabowski Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BARTOSZ GRABOWSKI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. APPLE INC., Case No. 2022CH0954,
was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on March 10, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-01303 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged common law fraud,
unjust enrichment and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act; consumer fraud, express warranty,
and implied warranty laws in the U.S.; and the Magnusson-Moss
Warranty Act by engaging in false, misleading, and deceptive
advertising of its Powerbeats Pro headphones under the Beats By Dre
brand.
Apple Inc. is a technology company based in Cupertino, California.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Sean E. Koller, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
444 West Lake Street, Suite 4000
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 372-2000
E-mail: sekoller@mwe.com
- and –
Elizabeth Rodd, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
200 Clarendon Street, Floor 58
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 535-4000
E-mail: Erodd@mwe.com
- and –
Peter J. Sacripanti, Esq.
John J. Calandra, Esq.
Nicole L. Castle, Esq.
Zachary E. Sproull, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
One Vanderbilt Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 547-5400
E-mail: PSacripanti@mwe.com
JCalandra@mwe.com
NCastle@mwe.com
ZSproull@mwe.com
ARANDAS BAKERY: Galvez Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE L. GALVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARANDAS BAKERY NO. 3, INC. Defendant, Case
No. 4:22-cv-00712 (S.D. Tex., March 7, 2022) seeks to recover from
the Defendant unpaid minimum and overtime compensation, back wages,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Mr. Galvez was employed by the Defendant from October of 2010 until
October of 2021 as a delivery driver.
Arandas Bakery provides Mexican pastries and desserts in the
Houston, Texas area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Curt Hesse, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Centre
440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1110
Houston, TX 77002-1063
Telephone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
curt@mooreandassociates.net
ARIES BLINDS: Fails to Provide Proper Overtime Wages, Liscano Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFERSON CELADA LISCANO, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. ARIES BLINDS INC and MANUEL BLANCO, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-20670-BB (S.D. Fla., March 7, 2022) is an action to
recover money damages for Defendants' unpaid overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants assisting with the
manufacturing of blinds and installing blinds from 2015 until May
5, 2021. He was allegedly misclassified as an independent
contractor.
Aries Blinds Inc. is a provider of custom blinds, shades and
shutters.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aron Smukler, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: asmukler@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
ASTROTECH CORP: Faces Securities Suit in Del. Ch.
-------------------------------------------------
Astrotech Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a class action was
filed against the company alleging that the company improperly
included broker non-votes in the tabulation of votes counted in
favor to approve an amendment to the company's Certificate of
Incorporation.
On April 15, 2021, a putative stockholder of the Company commenced
a class action and derivative lawsuit in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, "Stein v. Pickens, et al.," C.A. No. 2021-0322-JRS, in
which it was alleged, among other things, that the Company
improperly included broker non-votes in the tabulation of votes
counted in favor to approve an amendment to the company's
Certificate of Incorporation (2020 Certificate Amendment) and, thus
the 2020 Certificate Amendment was defective.
On April 30, 2021, the company filed a validation proceeding in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, "In re Astrotech Corporation, C.A. No.
2021-0380-JRS," pursuant to Section 205 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law.
On October 6, 2021, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the
Company's request and confirmed and validated the 2020 Certificate
Amendment. Thereafter, a settlement in principle was reached with
the Plaintiffs in the Stein Action and the parties to the Stein
Action presently anticipate presenting the settlement for approval
in the first half of 2022.
Astrotech Corporation is a mass spectrometry company that launches,
manages, and commercializes scalable companies based in Texas.
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Rapisura Labor Suit Goes to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ISAAC RAPISURA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC and DOES 1
to 50, Case No. STK-CV-40E-2022-861, was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of San Joaquin, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California on March 10, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-at-00268 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure
to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to maintain accurate
employment records, failure to pay wages timely during employment
and at termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and unfair business practices.
BMW of North America, LLC is a company that markets and sells motor
vehicles, with its principal place of business in Woodcliff Lake,
New Jersey. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Cheryl D. Orr, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 591-7500
Facsimile: (415) 591-7510
E-mail: cheryl.orr@faegredrinker.com
CANADA GOOSE: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Lee Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE LEE v. CANADA GOOSE
US, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-09809-VM-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Gabriel W. Gorenstein entered a scheduling and discovery order as
follows:
1. All pre-trial applications, including those relating to
scheduling and discovery, shall be made to the undersigned
(except motions to dismiss or for judgment on the
pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or
for class certification). All applications must comply
with this Court's Individual Practices, which are
available through the Clerk's Office or at:
https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-gabriel-w-gorenstein.
2. The parties should write to the Court at any time that
they wish to participate in Court-sponsored mediation.
3. All discovery (as well as requests for admissions) must be
initiated in time to be concluded by the deadline for all
discovery.
4. Discovery motions -- that is, any application pursuant to
Rules 26 through 37 or 45 -- not only must comply with
par. 2.A. of the Court's Individual Practices but also
must be made promptly after the cause for such a motion
arises. In addition, absent extraordinary circumstances no
such application will be considered if made later than 30
days prior to the close of discovery. Untimely
applications will be denied.
5. Any application for an extension of the time limitations
with respect to any deadlines in this matter must be made
as soon as the cause for the extension becomes known to
the party making the application and must be made in
accordance with par. 1.E of the Court's Individual
Practices. The application must state the position of all
other parties on the proposed extension and must show good
cause therefor not foreseeable as of the date of this
Order. "Good cause" as used in this paragraph does not
include circumstances within the control of counsel or the
party. Any application not in compliance with this
paragraph will be denied. Failure to comply with the terms
of this Order may also result in sanctions.
Canada Goose is a Canadian holding company of winter clothing
manufacturers.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3i4ulfc at no extra charge.[CC]
CAPITAL ONE: General Pretrial Management Entered in Goldstein
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN v.
Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Case No. 1:22-cv-00613-PGG-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding
general pretrial management as follows:
1. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery
must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of
discovery set by the Court.
2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions
requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly
after the need for such an application arises and must
comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of
Judge Moses's Individual Practices. It is the Court's
practice to decide discovery disputes at the Rule 37.2
conference, based on the parties' letters, unless a party
requests or the Court requires more formal briefing.
Absent extraordinary circumstances, discovery applications
made later than 30 days prior to the close of discovery
may be denied as untimely.
3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
conferences are not required, but may be requested where
counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court
may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues.
4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to
extend a deadline must be made in writing and in
compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual
Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or
extensions will not be entertained.
5. In accordance with section 1(d) of Judge Moses's
Individual Practices, letters and letter-motions are
limited to four pages, exclusive of attachments. Courtesy
copies of letters and letter-motions filed via ECF are not
required during the pendency of the COVID-19 national
emergency.
6. If you are aware of any party or attorney who should
receive notice in this action, other than those currently
listed on the docket sheet, please notify Courtroom Deputy
Kevin Snell at (212) 805-0228 immediately.
Capital One operates as a bank.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vWUlBv at no extra charge.[CC]
CEDAR REALTY: Monteverde & Associates Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. (CDR), relating to its proposed
acquisition by Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. Under the
terms of the agreement, CDR shareholders are expected to receive
$29.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/cedar-realty-trust-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for
shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. [GN]
CENTRAL COAST: Bid to Certify Class in Garcia Suit Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNIFER GARCIA, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL COAST
RESTAURANTS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02370-RS
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
I. Introduction
The putative class action avers violations of California laws
concerning meal periods and rest breaks by Defendants Central Coast
Restaurants, Inc. ("CCR") and Yadav Enterprises, Inc. in their
operation of franchise Jack in the Box restaurants in Northern
California. Proposed class representative and Lead Plaintiff
Jennifer Garcia, who worked at a CCR-owned Jack in the Box
restaurant in Salinas, California in 2015 and 2016, moves for class
certification. She proposes two subclasses: one for employees who
experienced meal period violations, and one for employees who
experienced rest break violations. The Defendants argue the
Plaintiff has failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b).
II. Background
CCR operates approximately 20 franchises of Jack in the Box
restaurants in Northern California. Yadav is a subsidiary of CCR
and does not operate restaurants, but rather provides
administrative support such as payroll and human resources support.
At CCR's restaurants, employees hold various positions that dictate
their operational roles at the restaurant such as front counter,
assembly or drive/thru.
At all points during the class period, CCR had a policy of entering
into arbitration agreements with employees at their time of hire.
Although CCR used three different arbitration agreements over the
course of the class period, each arbitration agreement compelled
arbitration for any claims brought by an employee arising from or
relating to their employment with CCR. The Defendants maintain that
almost all employees signed these arbitration agreements. When
Garcia was hired at age 17, she signed an arbitration agreement.
Ms. Garcia worked at a CCR-owned Jack in the Box in Salinas,
California from May 2015 to April 2016. Although originally hired
as a cashier, she testified in a declaration that she often had to
help with other positions, as the location was frequently busy and
under-staffed. Other members of the putative class similarly
describe the CCR-owned restaurants they worked at in Watsonville,
Gilroy, and Santa Cruz as under-staffed. The Plaintiff avers that
because of understaffing, both she and other members of the
putative class were denied proper meal periods and rest breaks. She
avers these denials were due to "workforce-wide practices and
policies that facilitate and reward cost-cutting by managers at the
expense of employees."
Ms. Garcia filed this wage and hour class action in December 2017
in Alameda County Superior Court, averring eight causes of action,
including the meal period and rest break claims upon which she
seeks certification. The Defendants removed the case to the Court
in April 2018. Their motion for summary judgment was denied in
September 2019. In October 2020, the Court held an evidentiary
hearing as to whether the Plaintiff was bound by the arbitration
agreement she signed, and concluded the agreement was void because
she had signed it as a minor and disaffirmed it within a reasonable
amount of time. The parties proceeded with discovery, and the
Plaintiff filed this motion for class certification on Nov. 4,
2021.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class and two subclasses. The
classes and subclasses are defined as follows:
a. Global Class: Current and former non-exempt workers of
Central Coast Restaurants, Inc., stores in California who worked
between Dec. 13, 2013, through the entry of final judgment in the
action for all remedies obtainable for the meal and rest
subclasses.
b. Subclass 1 - Meal Period Subclass: Current and former
non-exempt workers of Central Coast Restaurants, Inc., who worked
at least one shift of five hours or greater at any time between
Dec. 13, 2013, through the entry of final judgment in the action
without a record of all timely and proper meal period records.
c. Subclass 2 - Rest Break Subclass: Current and former
non-exempt workers of Central Coast Restaurants, Inc., who worked
at least three and a half hours or greater at any time between Dec.
13, 2013, through the entry of final judgment in the action with
records demonstrating the absence of timely and proper rest
breaks.
The claims upon which Garcia seeks certification allege violations
of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512, and California
Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order 5. California
Labor Code Section 512(a) requires employers to provide employees
with one 30-minute meal period, to begin no later than the end of
the fifth hour of work, and another 30-minute meal period to begin
no later than the tenth hour of work, for shifts of that length or
longer. If the employer does not provide a compliant meal period,
the employer must pay an additional hour of compensation at the
regular rate of compensation. An employer is liable only if it does
not provide an employee with the opportunity to take a compliant
meal period. The employer is not liable if the employee chooses to
take a short or delayed meal period or no meal period at all. )).
IWC Order 5 requires a rest period of 10 minutes per four hours of
work for shifts 3.5 hours or greater. Like for missed meal periods,
the employer must pay an additional hour of compensation at the
regular rate if it fails to provide a compliant rest period.
III. Discussion
Judge Seeborg holds that issues concerning putative class members
being bound by arbitration agreements do not render Garcia an
inadequate or atypical class representative, as she may advance
arguments against the validity of the arbitration clauses on a
class-wide basis. In contrast, although the Plaintiff has
established commonality under Rule 23(a) and predominance under
Rule 23(b) as to the proposed meal period subclass, she has not
established commonality or predominance as to the rest break
subclass. The motion for class certification will therefore be
granted as to the meal period subclass and be denied as to the rest
break subclass.
IV. Disposition
For these reasons, Judge Seeborg granted the motion for class
certification as to the meal period subclass, and denied as to the
rest break subclass. As the general class to be certified included
both the meal and rest break period claims, only the meal period
subclass is certified.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p9e2jsa from Leagle.com.
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Dismissed from PFAS Contamination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a putative class
action was filed against two electroplating companies, 3M and E.
I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (EID), a former parent company,
alleging responsibility for per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS) contamination, including Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), in drinking water and the
environment in the nearby community. Although initially named in
the lawsuit, Chemours was subsequently dismissed. The putative
class of residents alleges negligence, nuisance, trespass, and
other claims and seeks medical monitoring, personal injury and
property damages, and punitive damages.
The Chemours Company is a provider of performance chemicals based
in Delaware.
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces Suit in Ohio Over PFAS Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that in Ohio, a putative
class action was filed against several defendants including 3M, E.
I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (EID), a former parent company
and Chemours seeking class action status for U.S. residents having
a detectable level of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in
their blood serum. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief, including the establishment of a "PFAS Science Panel."
The Chemours Company is a provider of performance chemicals based
in Delaware.
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces Suit Over Water Contamination
------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a putative class
action on behalf of residents who are served by the Cape Fear
Public Water utility, alleges negligence, nuisance, and other
claims related to the release of perfluorinated compounds from
Fayetteville, and seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
medical monitoring.
The Chemours Company is a provider of performance chemicals based
in Delaware.
CHICAGO, IL: Court Certifies Class of Pedestrians in ACBMC Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO
et al., Plaintiff v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO, CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, LORI LIGHTFOOT, in her official capacity as mayor
of the City of Chicago, and THOMAS CARNEY, in his official capacity
as Acting Commissioner of the Chicago Department of Transportation,
Defendants, Case No. 19 C 6322 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Elaine E. Bucklo
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The complaint in the case challenges the City of Chicago's
allegedly inadequate efforts to make its intersections safely
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals. The
Plaintiffs, the American Council of the Blind of Metropolitan
Chicago ("ACBMC") and three of its individual members, assert
putative class claims for declaratory and injunctive relief for
violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
The Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification aiming
to certify a class comprising all blind or low-vision pedestrians
who use City of Chicago's signalized pedestrian intersections. They
further request that the named Plaintiffs be certified as the class
representatives and that Disability Rights Advocates ("DRA") and
Proskauer Rose LLP be appointed the class counsel.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 sets out the requirements for
class certification. First, a putative class must satisfy the
requirements of numerosity, typicality, commonality, and adequacy.
Additionally, the class must be certifiable pursuant to one of
three subdivisions of Rule 23(b). In the case, the Plaintiffs
invoke subdivision (b)(2), under which class certification is
appropriate if "the party opposing the class has acted or refused
to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final
injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is
appropriate respecting the class as a whole." Finally, the class
must be "ascertainable," which is to say, it must be clearly
defined based on objective criteria and must not be "fail-safe" in
the sense that it may not be defined in terms of success on the
merits. "The party seeking certification bears the burden of
demonstrating that certification is proper by a preponderance of
the evidence."
The City challenges only two aspects of the Plaintiffs' motion.
First, it argues that ACBMC is an inadequate class representative
because "it lacks the capabilities and organization necessary to
serve as a class representative," has an "inconsistent and minimal
history of APS advocacy prior to the lawsuit," and filed the suit
without first obtaining its membership's approval by means of a
vote.
But none of these arguments articulates a legally relevant basis
for denying class certification, Judge Bucklo opines. The City does
not identify any conflict of interest between ACBMC -- two of whose
members are also named plaintiffs -- and any absent class members,
and the record supports the inference that ACBMC will advocate
vigorously on behalf of the class, as it has participated actively
in this litigation so far.
Second, the City argues that the Plaintiffs have not established
commonality because they do not identify sufficiently specific
common questions. This argument similarly fails to address the
legally relevant criteria under Rule 23(a), Juduge Bucklo states.
The Plaintiffs point to a number of cases -- including Am. Council
of the Blind of N.Y. v. City of New York, No. 18-cv-5792 (S.D.N.Y),
a case substantially similar to this one -- in which courts have
certified classes based on common questions defined at similar
levels of generality to those Plaintiffs identify in the instant
case.
At bottom, Judge Bucklo holds that the City's objection to the
specificity of the common questions the Plaintiffs articulate is
directed to the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims. At the
certification stage, however, the Court does not "adjudicate that
case," but rather "selects the method best suited to adjudication
of the controversy fairly and efficiently." The City offers no
authority or compelling argument to suggest that the Plaintiffs'
claims are inappropriate for class certification because the common
questions they identify are insufficiently specific.
For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p858wz8 from
Leagle.com.
CONCIERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Lucas Files Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Concierge Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that the
lead plaintiff for the amended complaint has filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal for a putative class action filed by purported
shareholder Robert Lucas. The consolidated class action is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under the caption "In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities
Litigation," Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740.
On June 19, 2020, company subsidiaries United States Commodity
Funds LLC (USCF) and United States Oil Fund (USO), LP, John P. Love
and Stuart P. Crumbaugh were named as defendants in a putative
class action filed by purported shareholder Robert Lucas. The court
thereafter consolidated the Lucas Class Action with two related
putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August 13, 2020,
and appointed a lead plaintiff. The consolidated class action is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York under the caption "In re: United States Oil Fund, LP
Securities Litigation," Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740.
On November 30, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
(Amended Lucas Class Complaint). The Amended Lucas Class Complaint
asserts claims under the 1933 Act, the 1934 Act, and Rule 10b-5.
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint challenges statements in
registration statements that became effective on February 25, 2020
and March 23, 2020 as well as subsequent public statements through
April 2020 concerning certain extraordinary market conditions and
the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall
precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi
Arabia-Russia oil price war.
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint purports to have been brought by
an investor in USO on behalf of a class of similarly-situated
shareholders who purchased USO securities between February 25, 2020
and April 28, 2020 and pursuant to the challenged registration
statements.
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint seeks to certify a class and to
award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined
at trial as well as costs and attorney's fees. The Amended Lucas
Class Complaint named as defendants USCF, USO, John P. Love, Stuart
P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F. Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen,
Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and Malcolm R. Fobes III, as
well as the marketing agent, ALPS Distributors, Inc., and the
Authorized Participants: ABN Amro, BNP Paribas Securities
Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets,
Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities
Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill
Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation, Morgan Stanley & Company
Inc., Nomura Securities International Inc., RBC Capital Markets
LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, UBS Securities LLC, and Virtu
Financial BD LLC.
The lead plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its
claims against BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel
Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse
Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley &
Company, Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital
Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, and UBS Securities LLC.
Concierge Technologies, Inc. provides finance services based in
California.
CONSOL ENERGY: ERISA Suit Over Denied Benefits Filed in S.D.W.V.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that the District Court
entered a pretrial order setting the trial date for a consolidated
lawsuit in February 2021.
Three nonunion retired coal miners have sued Fola Coal Company LLC,
Consolidation Coal Company (CCC) and CONSOL of Kentucky Inc. (COK),
as well as the Company's former parent, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia alleging ERISA
violations in the termination of retiree health care benefits. The
Plaintiffs contend they relied to their detriment on oral
statements and promises of "lifetime health benefits" allegedly
made by various members of management during Plaintiffs' employment
and that they were allegedly denied access to Summary Plan
Documents that clearly reserved the right to modify or terminate
the Retiree Health and Welfare Plan subject to Plaintiffs' claims.
Pursuant to Plaintiffs' amended complaint filed on April 24, 2017,
Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated and
seek to represent a class of all nonunion retirees who were
associated with AMVEST and COK areas of operation.
A class action lawsuit was filed on August 23, 2017 on behalf of
two nonunion retired coal miners against CCC, COK, CONSOL Buchanan
Mining Co., LLC and Kurt Salvatori, the company's Chief
Administrative Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia alleging Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) violations in the termination of
retiree health care benefits.
Filed by the same lawyers who filed the Fitzwater litigation, and
raising nearly identical claims, the Plaintiffs contend they relied
to their detriment on oral promises of "lifetime health benefits'
allegedly made by various members of management during plaintiffs'
employment and that they were not provided with copies of Summary
Plan Documents clearly reserving to the Company the right to modify
or terminate the Retiree Health and Welfare Plan. Plaintiffs
request that retiree health benefits be reinstated for them and
their dependents and seek to represent a class of all non-union
retirees of any subsidiary of the company's former parent that
operated or employed individuals in McDowell or Mercer Counties,
West Virginia, or Buchanan or Tazewell Counties, Virginia whose
retiree welfare benefits were terminated.
On December 1, 2017, the trial court judge in Fitzwater signed an
order to consolidate Fitzwater with Casey. The Casey complaint was
amended on March 1, 2018 to add new plaintiffs, add defendant
CONSOL Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC and eliminate defendant
CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC in an attempt to expand the class
of retirees.
In October 15, 2019, Plaintiffs' supplemental motion for class
certification was denied on all counts. On July 15, 2020,
Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal with the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals on the Order denying class certification. The
Fourth Circuit denied Plaintiffs' appeal on August 14, 2020. On
October 1, 2020, the District Court entered a pretrial order
setting the trial date, which was held in February 2021. No ruling
has been issued by the judge.
CONSOL Energy Inc. is into coal mining based in Pennsylvania.
CORE CIVIC: Dillon Bid for Class Certification Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Melvin L. Dillon and
Robert J. Dillon, v. Core Civic, Correction Corp of America (NSDC)
et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01436-JAD-VCF (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge
Jennifer A. Dorsey entered an order that:
-- Brian Koehn's motion to dismiss is granted in part. This
case proceeds only on the injunction claim for a Fifth
Amendment due-process violation against defendants Brian
Koehn, Michael Carvajal, and M. Jefferson based on alleged
deliberate indifferent to unsafe conditions, which seeks
the appointment of a liaison to be assigned to immediately
have all inmates and staff tested for COVID-19 as a tool
to protect against the COVID-19 virus. All other claims
are dismissed.
-- The plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied.
-- Brian Koehn's motion to strike is granted. The Clerk of
Court is directed to strike pages 12–34 from plaintiffs'
amended complaint.
-- The Clerk of Court is directed to substitute Luis Rosa for
the Defendant Brian Koehn.
CoreCivic, Inc., formerly known as Corrections Corporation of
America or CCA, is the largest private prison corporation in the
United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3whcsT1 at no extra charge.[CC]
COVETRUS INC: Faces Securities Suit in E.D. N.Y.
------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended December 25, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 15, 2022, that on February 5, 2021,
a certain Jack Garnsey filed a putative shareholder derivative
action on behalf of Covetrus, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of
Henry Schein, Inc.) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, naming as defendants Benjamin Shaw, Christine
T. Komola, Steven Paladino, Betsy Atkins, Deborah G. Ellinger,
Sandra L. Helton, Philip A. Laskaway, Mark J. Manoff, Edward M.
McNamara, Ravi Sachdev, David E. Shaw, Benjamin Wolin, and Henry
Schein, Inc., with Covetrus, Inc. named as a nominal defendant.
The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties under state law and further alleges that Henry
Schein aided and abetted such breaches. The complaint also asserts
claims for contribution under the federal securities laws against
Henry Schein and other defendants. The complaint seeks declaratory,
injunctive, and monetary relief.
Henry Schein, Inc. is a solutions company for health care
professionals and is a provider of health care products and
services primarily to office-based dental and medical
practitioners, as well as alternate sites of care.
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Faces Shareholder Suit in E.D. Mich.
-------------------------------------------------------
Credit Acceptance Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a shareholder
filed a putative class action complaint against the company, its
Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division in October 2, 2020, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, based on alleged false and/or
misleading statements or omissions regarding the company and its
business.
Plaintiff seeks class certification, unspecified damages plus
interest and attorney and expert witness fees and other costs on
behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons and entities
(subject to specified exceptions) that purchased or otherwise
acquired Credit Acceptance common stock from November 1, 2019
through August 28, 2020.
On May 28, 2021, the court issued an opinion and order appointing
lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On July 22, 2021, the lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting similar violations,
seeking similar relief and expanding the putative class to include
all persons and entities (subject to specified exceptions) that
purchased or otherwise acquired Credit Acceptance common stock from
May 4, 2018 through August 28, 2020.
Credit Acceptance Corporation offers financing programs based in
that enable automobile dealers to sell vehicles to consumers based
in Michigan.
CREDIT BUREAU: California Court Certifies 2 Classes in Kang Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SUNG GON KANG, Plaintiff v. CREDIT BUREAU CONNECTION,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01359-AWI-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted in part Kang's motion for class
certification.
I. Background
Plaintiff Kang alleges that Defendant Credit Bureau caused him
injury in its violation of several state and federal consumer
credit reporting statutes. Credit Bureau sells credit reports that
help automobile dealers manage the regulatory compliance
obligations that accompany every consumer car purchase. One of the
obligations derives from a Treasury Department Office of Foreign
Assets Control ("OFAC") regulation that prohibits dealers from
doing business with anyone designated as a "Specially Designated
National" or "SDN" on OFAC's SDN list. Individuals on the SDN list
consist of persons and companies owned or controlled by, or acting
for or on behalf of, targeted countries, as well as persons and
entities that are not country-specific, such as terrorists and drug
traffickers. SDNs are prohibited from transacting business in the
United States for national security reasons.
Credit Bureau's credit reports indicate whether a consumer is an
"OFAC Hit," that is, someone with whom the automobile dealer might
not want to do business with because of that person's match to the
SDN list. To determine whether a consumer is an OFAC Hit, Credit
Bureau uses a "similar name" algorithm script that runs the
consumer's name against a copy of the SDN list downloaded on Credit
Bureau's servers. Despite the availability of additional pieces of
information identifying the consumer, such as date of birth and
address, Credit Bureau runs only first and last names when checking
whether a consumer matches with anyone on the SDN list.
In 488 credit reports containing an OFAC Hit that Credit Bureau
sold to a third party between October 2016 and September 2019, 8
reports had an exact match between the name of the consumer
applying for credit and the SDN considered a matching "Hit." None
of the reports had a match for name, date of birth, and address.
Credit Bureau is unaware of a single case in which its "similar
name" algorithm script generated an OFAC Hit that correctly matched
a consumer with an SDN.
Mr. Kang was a consumer whose name inaccurately came up as an OFAC
Hit on a credit report sold by Credit Bureau to Norm Reeves Honda.
The OFAC check matched Kang with a North Korean SDN named Song Nam
Kang. After Norm Reeves Honda denied Kang credit in front of his
father and sister, Kang felt embarrassed, ashamed, and angry. He
later requested and received a copy of the credit report, at which
time he learned that Credit Bureau's OFAC check incorrectly matched
him with an SDN.
Mr. Kang filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and a class of
similarly situated consumers, pleading causes of action under the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681
et seq., and California's Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act
("CCRAA"), Cal. Civil Code Section 1785.1 et seq. Specifically, on
behalf of a putative class, Kang alleged that Credit Bureau failed
to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible
accuracy of the consumer information included in its OFAC Check
documents, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681e(b) and Cal.
Civil Code Section 1785.14(b); and failed to disclose upon request
all information in consumer files, in violation of 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681g(a) and Cal. Civil Code Sections 1785.10 and 1785.15.
On behalf of only himself, Kang alleged that Credit Bureau failed
to reinvestigate the disputed OFAC-related information that it had
prepared and sold to the dealership, in violation of 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681i.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Credit Bureau
moved to dismiss all five claims on the ground that it was not
subject to these provisions of the FCRA and CCRAA because it was
not acting as a credit reporting agency under the factual
allegations of the complaint. The Court denied this motion. Credit
Bureau then moved for summary judgment, arguing that under the
applicable statutes it was not acting as a consumer reporting
agency and the OFAC check documents were not consumer reports.
Before that motion was taken under submission by the Court, Kang
filed a motion for class certification. The Court denied the latter
motion, noting it could be re-noticed, if necessary, following the
Court's resolution of Credit Bureau's summary judgment motion. The
Court later denied the summary judgment motion. Thereafter, Kang
has now re-noticed his class certification motion.
II. Discussion
Class actions are governed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which imposes a two-step test for deciding whether a
class may be certified. Under the first step, the court determines
whether the moving party has established four perquisites: (1) the
class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the
claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the
claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties
will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
If the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are met, the court considers
whether the proposed class action meets at least one of the three
provisions of Rule 23(b). Relevant in the case, Rule 23(b) states
that a class action may be maintained if "the court finds that the
questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class
action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy."
A. Class Definition
Kang seeks certification of the following classes under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3):
a. All individuals about whom Defendant prepared a report that
(1) included an OFAC Hit; (2) was published to a third party from
October 2, 2013 to the date of judgment; and (3) included a U.S.
address (including U.S. Territories) for that individual.
b. All individuals about whom Defendant prepared a report that
(1) included an OFAC Hit; (2) was published to a third party from
October 2, 2011 to the date of judgment; and (3) included a U.S.
address (including U.S. Territories) for that individual.
With one exception, Judge Ishii holds that these definitions
describe classes that are ascertainable based on objective
criteria. The lone problem rests with the class period's
unspecified end date -- "to the date of judgment" -- which both
"creates a moving target and presents potential case management
problems." A specified end date, in contrast, promotes the
"interests of clarity and finality" and "helps ensure that
plaintiff-specific discovery will be completed in a timely manner."
Judge Ishii will exercise discretion to set a new class period end
date as the date of this certification order.
B. Numerosity
Credit Bureau does not contest that the proposed class satisfies
this requirement. Kang presents evidence suggesting that at least
400 putative class members exist. This satisfies the numerosity
requirement of Rule 23(a)(1).
C. Commonality
Judge Ishii finds that the commonality requirement is satisfied.
Kang identifies the common issues as (1) whether Credit Bureau
disclosed consumer information included in its OFAC Check documents
to third parties; (2) whether those disclosures contained
inaccurate OFAC "Hits"; and (3) whether Credit Bureau willfully
failed to use reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible
accuracy of the OFAC information through its "similar name"
matching script system. Credit Bureau does not address the
commonality issue in opposition. Additionally, several courts in
this Circuit have regarded the question of whether the defendant
used reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy as
satisfying the commonality prerequisite. Accordingly, the
commonality requirement is met.
D. Typicality
Judge Ishii that Kang's claims are typical of those of the class.
While Kang may have had a somewhat unique experience with Credit
Bureau when the disclosure of his OFAC check results in front of
his father and sister during his purchase caused him to feel
"angry" and "embarrassed," that experience is not the basis for
Kang's claim; rather, the basis comes from the willfulness of
Credit Bureau's conduct. Even if Kang's injuries were slightly more
severe than some class members' injuries, Kang's injuries still
arose "from the same event or practice or course of conduct that
gave rise to the claims of other class members and his claims were
based on the same legal theory."
E. Adequacy of Representation
Judge Ishii finds that Kang is an adequate class representative, a
matter that Credit Bureau does not contest. First, Kang is not
conflicted, as he and the rest of the putative class have a mutual
interest in recovering from Credit Bureau (and not any supervisors
or other employees) uniform statutory damages under the FCRA and
CCRAA. Second, Kang has shown himself to be qualified to serve as
class representative by retaining counsel, conferring with his
attorneys regarding the matter, and participating in discovery.
Credit Bureau also does not challenge the adequacy of the proposed
class counsel, Caddell & Chapman, and Francis Mailman Soumilas,
P.C. Michael Caddell, of the former firm, declares that he and his
law firm have significant experience litigating complex claims and
numerous class action lawsuits.
Judge Ishii finds that the proposed class counsel is adequate
because the counsel: (1) have sufficiently identified and
investigated potential claims in this lawsuit; (2) have sufficient
experience litigating FCRA and other class actions; (3) appear to
have sufficient knowledge of the applicable FCRA and CCRAA laws;
and (4) appear to be willing and able to commit sufficient
resources to representing the proposed class.
F. Predominance
Judge Ishii finds that common questions predominate on Kang's FRCA
claims, but not on a subgroup of Kang's CCRAA claims. The primary
common question is whether Credit Bureau's "similar name' matching
script system was a reasonable procedure to assure maximum possible
accuracy of the OFAC information it prepared for its customers.
Credit Bureau contends that predominance is not met on two grounds:
First, Credit Bureau asserts that individualized inquiries into the
extent of each class member's "actual damages" predominate over
common questions. Second, Credit Bureau contends that the
"timeliness" of each class member's claims presents predominant
individualized inquiries.
Judge Ishii concludes that the individualized damages issues do not
predominate over Kang's FCRA claim for statutory damages or CCRAA
claim for injunctive relief, but they do predominate over Kang's
CCRAA claim for statutory punitive damages. Additionally, he finds
insufficient evidence in the record to conclude that individualized
statute of limitations questions predominate over common questions
regarding the reasonableness of Credit Bureau's procedures.
G. Superiority
Mr. Kang argues that class treatment is clearly superior, and
Credit Bureau does not directly address the issue in opposition.
Judge Ishii finds the Rule 23(b)(3) factors weigh in favor of
certification. There is no indication that putative class members
have any interest in individually controlling the prosecution of
separate actions. Nor is there indication of other actions raising
the same issues based on the same facts or indication that there is
another forum where an action of this kind could be raised. While
managing a class is by nature more difficult than managing the
claims of a single plaintiff, there is no suggestion here that the
proposed class would be unmanageable. To the contrary, these claims
seem particularly apt for class adjudication through use of records
and data in Credit Bureau's possession.
III. Conclusion and Order
In light of the foregoing, Judge Ishii is satisfied that Kang has
demonstrated that class certification is appropriate. However, the
classes to be certified will be modified to reflect that the class
period ends as of the date of the Order and that statutory punitive
damages under the CCRA will not be permitted through the class
process.
Accordingly, Kang's motion for class certification is granted in
part as follows:
a. For Kang's FCRA claims for statutory damages, Judge Ishii
certified a class defined as All individuals about whom Defendant
prepared a report that (1) included an OFAC Hit; (2) was published
to a third party from Oct. 2, 2013 to March 4, 2022 and (3)
included a U.S. address (including U.S. Territories) for that
individual.
b. For Kang's CCRAA claims for injunctive relief, Judge Ishii
certified a class defined as All individuals about whom Defendant
prepared a report that (1) included an OFAC Hit; (2) was published
to a third party from Oct. 2, 2011 to March 4, 2022; and (3)
included a U.S. address (including U.S. Territories) for that
individual.
Judge Ishii appointed Plaintiff Kang as the class representative,
and appoints the Plaintiff's counsel, Caddell & Chapman, and
Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C., to serve as the co-class counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/a7mwh84t from Leagle.com.
CUSIP GLOBAL: Dinosaur Fin'l. Sues Over CUSIP Use Market Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DINOSAUR FINANCIAL GROUP LLC and SWISS LIFE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT
HOLDING AG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CUSIP GLOBAL SERVICES, S&P GLOBAL, INC.,
AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION, and FACTSET RESEARCH SYSTEMS INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01860 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2022) is
brought pursuant to the United States Copyright Act of 1976 and the
Sherman Act arising from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to
eliminate competition in the use of CUSIP, a functional handle to
identify a particular financial instrument.
CUSIP is an acronym that stands for Committee on Uniform Securities
Identification Procedures. Each CUSIP is a nine-digit number that
identifies specific North American financial instruments and
thereby facilitates the processing, clearing, and settlement of
trades of that instrument. Banks, investment funds, public employee
pension funds, fund managers, and other financial institutions,
including the Plaintiffs, both in the United States and abroad,
need the CUSIPs to operate their businesses.
According to the complaint, Defendants CUSIP Global Services and
S&P Global, Inc. had a direct relationship with financial
institutions; the financial institutions purchased physical books
containing all CUSIP numbers in use. However, beginning in the
1980s, data vendors in the financial services industry began
providing rich sets of value-added data services, including CUSIPs,
directly to financial institutions. As a result, S&P and CGS lost
their contractual relationships with financial institutions and
therefore could no longer control the financial institutions' use
of the CUSIPs they received from their data vendors. Such
uncontrolled use threatened S&P's monopoly power over the CUSIP Use
Market, says the suit.
The "CUSIP Use Market" is not competitive because S&P, CGS, and the
American Bankers Association excluded all actual and potential
competitors from that market, which in turn allowed them to impose
the so-called "license"-based restrictions and "license fees" on
financial institutions. These Defendants could not have engaged in
this exploitive conduct and charged these monopoly rents in a
competitive market, the suit added.
CUSIP Global Services is a company that provides financial
instruments and services.
S&P Global, Inc. is a provider of financial information and data
analytics. It is headquartered in New York, New York.
American Bankers Association is a trade association for the United
States banking industry organized under Section 501(c)(6) of the
Internal Revenue Code.
FactSet Research Systems Inc. is a financial data analytics
company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Leiv Blad, Esq.
Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Esq.
COMPETITION LAW PARTNERS PLLC
1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 742-4300
E-mail: leiv@competitionlawpartners.com
jeff@competitionlawpartners.com
- and -
Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
Gregory K. Arenson, Esq.
Donald R. Hall, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Ave., 14th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
ffox@kaplanfox.com
garenson@kaplanfox.com
dhall@kaplanfox.com
- and -
David Nimmer, Esq.
Joseph Mantegani, Esq.
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
1800 Avenue of the Stars Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 277-1010
E-mail: dnimmer@irell.com
jmantegani@irell.com
DAVITA INC: Faces Antitrust Suit in Illinois
--------------------------------------------
Davita Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 11, 2022, that on August 9, 2021, DaVita was
named as defendant in a consolidated class action complaint in the
matter of "In re Outpatient Medical Center Employee Antitrust
Litigation" in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Illinois.
This class action complaint seeks to bring an action on behalf of
certain groups of individuals employed by the Company between
February 1, 2012 and January 5, 2021. On October 18, 2021, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint.
DaVita Inc. is a healthcare provider based in Colorado.
DAVITA INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in D. Colo.
----------------------------------------------
Davita Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 11, 2022, that the company was named
defendant in a class action lawsuit that alleges that the Company
and its executives violated federal securities laws.
On February 1, 2017, the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund
of Georgia filed a putative federal securities class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
against the Company and certain executives.
The complaint covers the time period of August 2015 to October 2016
and alleges, generally, that the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws concerning the Company's financial
results and revenue derived from patients who received charitable
premium assistance from an industry-funded non-profit organization.
The complaint further alleges that the process by which patients
obtained commercial insurance and received charitable premium
assistance was improper and "created a false impression of DaVita's
business and operational status and future growth prospects.
DaVita Inc. is a healthcare provider based in Colorado.
DAVITA INC: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action
-------------------------------------------
Davita Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 11, 2022, that it is facing a two count
indictment alleging that purported agreements entered into by
DaVita's former chief executive officer not to solicit senior-level
employees violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Davita filed a
motion to dismiss the class action complaint in October 2021.
On July 14, 2021, an indictment was returned by a grand jury in the
U.S. District Court, District of Colorado against the Company and
its former chief executive officer.
DaVita Inc. is a healthcare provider based in Colorado.
DE LONGHI: Ghaznavi Sues Over Machine's Unlawful Repair Restriction
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HAMZA GHAZNAVI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DE LONGHI AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-01871-KPF (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2022) is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the
New York General Business Law, unjust enrichment, fraud, and
fraudulent omission concerning the unlawfulness of the repair
restrictions that are included in Defendant's warranties.
De Longhi America, Inc. distributes consumer products to retailers
throughout the United States, who then sell the appliances to
consumers.
The lawsuit arises from the Defendant's conduct of marketing,
manufacturing, and/or selling consumer products wherein the
warranties include statements that condition the continued validity
of the warranty on the use of only an authorized repair service
and/or authorized replacement parts, which violates state and
federal law.
According to the complaint, Mr. Ghaznavi purchased one De'Longhi
Eletta Fully Automatic Espresso Cappuccino and Coffee Maker from
Costco.com, which shipped the product to his home, in May 2020. He
asserts that the product he purchased did not comply with state and
federal law because of the unlawful repair restriction attached to
the warranty that prohibited him from repairing it. He added that
he would not have purchased the product, or would have paid
significantly less for the product, had he known that it did not
comply with state and federal law.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Ave, Third Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jdiamond@bursor.com
- and -
Neal Deckant,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: ndeckant@bursor.com
DELTA AIR LINES: Antitrust Suits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------
Delta Air Lines, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that it is facing a
number of purported class action antitrust lawsuits alleging that
Delta, American, United and Southwest had conspired to restrain
capacity. A summary judgment motion for the lawsuit has been fully
briefed and pending.
In July 2015, a number of purported class action antitrust lawsuits
were filed alleging that Delta, American, United and Southwest had
conspired to restrain capacity.
The lawsuits were filed in the wake of media reports that the U.S.
Department of Justice had served civil investigative demands upon
these carriers seeking documents and information relating to this
subject.
The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single Multi-District
Litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia. The company's summary judgment motion has been fully
briefed and pending since May 2021.
Delta Air Lines, Inc. is an airline company based in Georgia.
DPS EAST: Faces Best Suit Over Technicians' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BEST, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DPS EAST COAST, LLC, and DANIAL A.
McHENRY, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00246-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla.,
March 7, 2022) is an action brought by Plaintiff against the
Defendants for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a technician from
approximately June 7, 2021 until February 20, 2022.
DPS East Coast, LLC is a chicken processor company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremiah J. Talbott, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TALBOTT & LAMPERT, P.A.
900 East Moreno Street
Pensacola, FL 32503
Telephone: (850) 437-9600
Facsimile: (850) 437-0906
E-mail: civilfiling@talbottlawfirm.com
E.I. DU PONT: Settles Leach Water Contamination Case
----------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that In 2004, E.I. du
Pont de Nemours and Company (EID), a former parent company, settled
a class action captioned "Leach v. DuPont," filed in West Virginia
state court, alleging that approximately 80,000 residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to Perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA) in drinking water.
Among the settlement terms, EID funded a series of health studies
by an independent science panel of experts to evaluate available
scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as defined
in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and disease.
The Chemours Company is a provider of performance chemicals based
in Delaware.
EAT DRINK: Certification of Collective Action Sought
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNIYA SWAN-SULLIVAN, On
Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. EAT DRINK
HERE L.L.C. and CHARLES A. HODGE d/b/a SOVEREIGN REMEDIES, Case No.
1:21-cv-314-MOC-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order:
a. conditionally certifying a collective action under 29
U.S.C. section 216(b) consisting of:
"all current and former servers employed at Sovereign
Remedies at any time since October 22, 2018 who were paid
an hourly rate of less than $7.25 before earned tips;"
b. approving the Notice and Consent Form;
c. directing the Defendants, within seven days following the
Court's Order granting this Motion, to provide to the
Plaintiff's counsel an Excel spreadsheet containing the
name, last known mailing address(es), last known e-mail
address(es), last known telephone number(s), and dates of
employment for each current and former employee who falls
within the class;
d. directing the Plaintiff's counsel, within seven days of
receiving the Class List from Defendants, to cause the
approved Notice and Consent Forms to issue to potential
Opt-In Plaintiffs via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and Short Message
Service (SMS) / text message, at their initial expense
without prejudice to seeking reimbursement and shall
include a self-addressed, postage-prepaid envelope with
the initial mailing;
e. setting an opt-in period of 60 days from the issuance of
the Court-authorized Notice and Consent Form;
f. directing the Defendants, within 14 days following the
close of the opt-in period, to produce the payroll,
timekeeping, and tip data for all individuals who have
opted into this action;
g. directing the parties to engage in settlement negotiations
in a good faith attempt to resolve this matter within the
45 days following the close of the opt-in period; and
h. that the parties shall file either a Joint Status Report
by no later than 45 days after the close of the opt-in
period informing the Court whether the parties have
reached a resolution and, if no resolution has been
reached, proposing a schedule for the remainder of the
litigation.
A copy of the Parties motion dated March 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J8uzOs at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Narendra K. Ghosh, Esq.
PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP
100 Europa Dr., Suite 420
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
Telephone: (919) 942-5200
E-mail: nghosh@pathlaw.com
- and -
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kerry A. Shad, Esq.
Zebulon D. Anderson, Esq.
Shameka C. Rolla, Esq.
SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT,
MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, L.L.P.
PO Box 2611
Raleigh, NC 27602
Telephone: (919) 821-6735
Facsimile: (919) 821-6800
E-mail: kshad@smithlaw.com
zanderson@smithlaw.com
srolla@smithlaw.com
FARMERS INSURANCE: White Sues Over Excessive Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARSHELL WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION, Defendant, Case No. 22STCV08437 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., March 8, 2022) is brought against the Defendant for breach of
contract, including breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and for violation of the California Unfair Competition
Law.
The lawsuit arises from the Defendant's improper assessment and
collection of $30 overdraft fees on accounts that were not actually
overdrawn, including $30 OD Fees on debit card transactions
authorized on sufficient funds, and multiple $30 fees on an item.
Through the imposition of these alleged fees, Defendant has made
substantial revenue to the tune of millions of dollars, seeking to
turn its customers' financial struggles into revenue. The
Plaintiff, like thousands of other customers, has fallen victim to
Defendant's fee revenue maximization schemes, says the suit.
Farmers Insurance Group Federal Credit Union is a Burbank,
California-headquartered federal credit union with more than $1.2
in assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15the Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
- and -
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
- and -
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
JOHNSON FIRM
610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 372-1300
E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com
FCA US: Johnson Sues Over Faulty Side Airbag Inflatable Curtains
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Johnson, Dennis Carnes, Ronald Humes, and Lori Owen,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. FCA US, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Co.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-10494-SDD-EAS (E.D. Mich., March 7,
2022) is a class action brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law,
the California False Advertising Law, the Song-Beverly Act, the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the
Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and the Pennsylvania Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated in the United States who purchased
vehicles equipped with Side Airbag Inflatable Curtains (SABICs)
that were manufactured, distributed, and/or sold by Chrysler
between model years 2010 and 2017.
According to the complaint, in the promotional brochures and on
window stickers that accompanied Chrysler vehicles, Chrysler
described and depicted its SABIC system as standard equipment that
was one safety component in a comprehensive crashworthiness and
occupant protection system. Allegedly, Chrysler did not disclose to
consumers the fact that the SABIC system was designed and
programmed to not deploy under certain rollover conditions and the
majority of rollover crashes. Nor did Chrysler disclose to
customers the fact that its SABIC system differed in this material
aspect from all of Chrysler's competitors.
Accordingly, the Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs and Class
Members of the benefit of their bargain by overstating the safety
of Chrysler vehicles and failing to disclose the programmed limits
of the SABIC equipment, thereby causing them to expend money to
purchase vehicles that they would not have purchased or would have
paid less for had they known of the faulty SABIC/SDRC logic, added
the suit.
FCA US, LLC is an automobile manufacturer headquartered in Auburn
Hills, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Victoria S. Nugent, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: vnugent@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
11780 U.S. Highway 1 North Suite N500
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408
Telephone: (561) 515-1400
Facsimile: (561) 515-1401
E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Samuel Cherry, Esq.
CHERRY AND IRWIN, P.C.
163 W. Main Street
Dothan, AL 36301
Telephone: (334) 793-1000
Facsimile: (334) 699-7532
E-mail: sam@cherryirwin.com
- and -
David Haynes, Esq.
THE COCHRAN FIRM
1666 K Street, N.W., Suite 1150
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 682-5800
E-mail: dhaynes@cochranfirmdc.com
- and -
Steven G. Calamusa, Esq.
Geoff S. Stahl, Esq.
GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A.
4114 Northlake Blvd.
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Telephone: (561) 799-5070
Facsimile: (561) 799-4050
E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com
gstahl@fortheinjured.com
FINANCIAL INDEMNITY: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Bhasker Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HELEN BHASKER, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00260-KWR/JHR (D.N.M.), Judge Kea W.
Riggs of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico
denied the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
I. Background
The putative class action arises out of a dispute over
"underinsured motorist coverage." In New Mexico, underinsured
motorist coverage generally consists of the difference between an
insured's uninsured motorist coverage limit and a tortfeasor's
liability coverage.
Under NMSA Section 66-5-301, 'underinsured motorist' means an
operator of a motor vehicle with respect to the ownership,
maintenance or use of which the sum of the limits of liability
under all bodily injury liability insurance applicable at the time
of the accident is less than the limits of liability under the
insured's uninsured motorist coverage.
Pursuant to this statutory offset under NMSA Section 66-5-301,
underinsured motorist coverage at minimum limits generally does not
exist. If a tortfeasor's liability limit is $25,000 and an
insured's uninsured motorist coverage limit is $25,000, the insured
will rarely access the underinsured motorist coverage portion of
his or her motorist insurance.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sold her underinsured
motorist coverage but did not disclose that it had little value. On
June 24, 2015, the Plaintiff was injured in an automobile collision
with another driver. The tortfeasor carried minimum limits of
liability coverage, that is, $25,000 per person and $50,000 per
accident. The Plaintiff received the full extent of liability
coverage carried by the tortfeasor, but that coverage was
insufficient to fully compensate Plaintiff for her damages. When
the Plaintiff requested that the Defendant provide her with the UIM
benefits for which he paid a premium, the Defendant denied her
claim.
At the time of the collision, the Plaintiff was insured by the
Defendant. She had purchased uninsured and underinsured motorist
coverage in the amount of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per
occurrence. According to the Plaintiff, the insurance application
and policy issued by the Defendant failed to advise her that UIM
coverage is "illusory" in the event of an accident involving a
minimally insured driver. She alleges that the "Defendant
misrepresented to her that she would benefit from underinsured
coverage when they knew, or should have known, that the coverage
was meaningless. The Defendant's misrepresentations or lack of
representations were made, knowingly and willfully, with the intent
to deceive and induce her in purchasing underinsured coverage."
The Plaintiff alleges that the "policy failed to state that
underinsured coverage is illusory in the event of a covered
occurrence, as in the case, involving a minimally insured driver."
The policy documents also "materially misrepresented underinsured
coverage and did not contain clear, unambiguous language regarding
the effects of New Mexico's underinsured coverage offset laws." The
"Defendant's policy did not alert the Plaintiff, nor made clear to
the ordinary and similarly situated insured, the fact that the New
Mexico offset law drastically and materially diminished payment of
benefits arising from a covered occurrence under the policy.
Specifically, there is virtually no possible underinsured minimum
limits claim available to the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated members of the class."
The Plaintiff subsequently filed the putative class action,
asserting the following claims: Count I: Negligence; Count II:
Violations of the Unfair Trade Practices Act (N.M.S.A.1978, Section
57-12-2) (UPA); Count III: Violations of the Unfair Insurance
Practices Act (N.M.S.A.1978, Sections 59A-16-1 et seq.) (UIPA);
Count IV: Breach of Contract and claim for Motorist Coverage Count
V: Breach of Contract and Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;
Count VI: Injunctive Relief; Count VII: Declaratory Judgment; and
Count VIII: Punitive Damages.
In Crutcher v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., et al., Case No.:
18-cv-00412-JCH-LF (D.N.M.), U.S. District Judge Judith C. Herrera
certified the following questions to the New Mexico Supreme Court:
Under N.M. Stat. Ann. Section 66-5-301, is underinsured motorist
coverage on a policy that offers only minimum UM/UIM limits of
$25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident illusory for an insured who
sustains more than $25,000 in damages caused by a minimally insured
tortfeasor because of the offset recognized in Schmick v. State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and, if so, may insurers
charge a premium for that non-accessible underinsured motorist
coverage?
The instant matter was stayed pending the New Mexico Supreme
Court's answer. The New Mexico Supreme Court answered this question
and the Defendant moved for summary judgment.
II. Discussion
The case is now before the Court following the New Mexico Supreme
Court's answer to a certified question in Crutcher. The New Mexico
Supreme Court was asked whether (1) underinsured motorist coverage
the minimum limits was illusory, and if so, (2) whether insurers
could charge a premium for that illusory coverage. The New Mexico
Supreme Court held that underinsured motorist coverage at minimum
limits, as in this case, is illusory in the sense that it misleads
insureds into believing they are purchasing coverage when they are
not. However, Crutcher noted that this coverage was statutorily
authorized, and therefore the Court would not prohibit insurers
from collecting premiums for minimum underinsured motorist coverage
if they issued a disclosure or "exclusion."
The Defendant moves for summary judgment on all claims in the case
in light of Crutcher. It primarily bases its motion on the belief
that Crutcher applies prospectively as to the misrepresentation
claims and grants the Defendant immunity from misrepresentation
claims which accrued prior to the Crutcher opinion. The Defendant
also seeks summary judgment on the "fraud and misrepresentation
claims" and punitive damages, asserting that there is no genuine
dispute of material fact precluding summary judgment.
A. Crutcher v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. does not mandate dismissal of
the claims in this case.
The Defendant appears to seek dismissal of all claims in the case
in light of the New Mexico Supreme Court's decision in Crutche. It
appears to believe that Crutcher applies prospectively and grants
it immunity from pre-Crutcher misrepresentation claims as to
minimum limit underinsured motorist coverage.
Judge Wiggs disagrees and concludes that Crutcher does not mandate
summary judgment in the Defendant's favor. She finds that the New
Mexico Supreme Court did not expressly state that Crutcher applies
prospectively as to misrepresentation claims. Moreover, the
presumption of retroactivity has not been overcome. The New Mexico
Supreme Court uses three factors to determine whether the
presumption of retroactive application has been overcome. In
considering these factors, it concludes the presumption of
retroactive application has not been overcome as to
misrepresentation claims. In other words, Crutcher does not provide
the Defendant with immunity for misrepresentation claims which
arose pre-Crutcher.
Finally, the Defendant argues that it cannot be held liable for not
paying underinsured motorist coverage because they are merely
following the statutory offset. However, as the New Mexico Supreme
Court stated, the statutory offset clearly does not provide
immunity from claims that the Defendant misrepresented the nature
or value of underinsured motorist coverage.
B. Genuine dispute of material fact precludes summary judgment for
fraud and misrepresentation claims.
The Defendant next appears to argue that Counts I, II and III fail
because the Plaintiff has failed to show that there was a
misrepresentation or misleading statement. It asserts that the
fraud and misrepresentation claims should be dismissed because the
Plaintiff does not recall her interactions with the insurance
agents and cannot identify any verbal misrepresentations. It also
asserts there are instances where it will pay out claims for
minimum underinsured motorist coverage, which proves that its
coverage is not illusory.
Judge Wiggs disagrees. Crutcher did not foreclose misrepresentation
claims arising from written policies which failed to adequately
explain to insureds how underinsured motorist coverage works.
Moreover, the Plaintiff asserted material facts which create a
genuine dispute as to whether the policy documents misled the
Plaintiff or misrepresented the extent of underinsured motorist
coverage.
The Defendant also presents some evidence that its underinsured
motorist coverage has some value. It argues that this value shows
that its underinsured motorist coverage is not illusory or
misleading to insureds. Although this may be relevant evidence,
Judge Wiggs concludes that this evidence is not sufficient to show
there is no genuine dispute as to the misrepresentation claims. She
agrees with Judge Browning's reasoning that a showing of some value
does not necessarily foreclose the misrepresentation claims.
C. Punitive Damages.
The Defendant asserts that even if the claims survive, the Court
should dismiss the "extra-contractual damages." It asserts it did
not have a culpable mental state because (1) its actions were
authorized by law and (2) the underinsured motorist coverage
retained some value for policy holders. The Plaintiff has shown a
genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether the Defendant
acted willfully or in reckless disregard of the potential harm to
the Plaintiff's interests. The Defendant argues that it was merely
complying with New Mexico's statutory scheme, which proves that it
was not acting willfully.
Judge Wiggs disagrees. As explained by the New Mexico Supreme
Court, the Defendant was not authorized to misrepresent the nature
of coverage it sold to the Plaintiff. The Defendant's
responsibility to adequately explain the extent of UM/UIM coverage
as the insured is well established. Misrepresentation law is well
established, and the Defendant was also aware that it had a duty to
not sell misleading insurance. Judge Wiggs concludes that the
Plaintiff has shown there is a genuine dispute of material fact
precluding summary judgment on the punitive damages issue.
III. Conclusion
Judge Wiggs concludes that Crutcher does not bar the
misrepresentation claims in the case which accrued prior to the
issuance of the Crutcher opinion. The Plaintiff has also shown a
genuine dispute of material fact precluding summary judgment.
Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied
for reasons she described in her Memorandum Opinion and Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/jbyyuk9w from
Leagle.com.
FLOWERS FOODS: April 26 Continuance for Class Cert Hearing Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL LUDLOW,
individually and on behalf of others similarly-situated; and
WILLIAM LANCASTER, individually and on behalf of others
similarly-situated, v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., a Georgia corporation;
FLOWERS BAKERIES, LLC, a Georgia limited liability, FLOWERS
FINANCE, LLC, a limited liability company, Case No.
3:18-cv-01190-JO-JLB (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order:
The parties jointly move to continue the hearings on Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification and the Defendants' motion to Compel
Arbitration from March 30, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. to April 26, 2022,
April 27-29, May 3-6 or to the next available date after May 16,
2022 that is acceptable to the Court.
Good cause exists to briefly continue these hearings because
Plaintiffs' counsel Alex Tomasevic, who plans to present the bulk
of the argument on behalf of the Plaintiffs, has an irreconcilable
conflict whereby he will be out of state on the current hearing
date. Both Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and the
Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration are fully briefed.
Flowers Foods, headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia, is a producer
and marketer of packed bakery food. The company operates 47
bakeries producing bread, buns, rolls, snack cakes, pastries, and
tortillas.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34EWoiq at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
Shaun Markley, Esq.
Ethan T. Litney, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
smarkley@nicholaslaw.org
elitney@nicholaslaw.org
The Defendants are represented by:
Frank L. Tobin, Esq.
Kevin Hishta, Esq.
Jared L. Palmer, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
10 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (858) 652-3100
Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
E-mail: frank.tobin@ogletree.com
clint.engleson@ogletree.com
kevin.hishta@ogletree.com
jared.palmer@ogletree.com
FRANKLIN COUNTY, PA: Class Certification Denial in Doe Suit Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3 and Jane Doe 1,
Appellants v. Franklin County, Franklin County Sheriff's Office,
Franklin County Sheriff Dane Anthony, and Employee John/Jane Doe,
Case No. 96 C.D. 2021 (Pa. Cmmw.), the Commonwealth Court of
Pennsylvania reversed the trial court's holding, vacated the order
of the Court of Common Pleas of the 39th Judicial District,
Franklin County Branch, denying the Licensees-Appellants' motion
for class certification.
I. Introduction
Licensees John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3 and Jane Doe 1 appeal
the trial court's order denying their motion for class
certification. The Licensees argue that the trial court erred
because it based its decision on the merits of the underlying
action and not on the standards for a class certification. They
further argue that they have satisfied each of the prerequisites
enumerated in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1702 for class
certification. Licensees assert that the trial court's order
denying class certification is appealable as a collateral order
under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 313(b), PA.R.A.P.
313(b).
II. Background
The Licensees are residents of Franklin County who have been
licensed to carry firearms by the Franklin County Sheriff. On Dec.
19, 2014, the Licensees filed a complaint against Franklin County,
the Sheriff's Office, and Sheriff Dane Anthony (collectively,
County) for disclosing the status of their licenses to the public.
Specifically, Counts I to III of the complaint asserted that the
County violated the confidentiality provision of Section 6111(i) of
the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act of 1995 (Firearms Act), 18
Pa. C.S. Section 6111(i), by sending postcards through the United
States Postal Service (USPS) to notify the Licensees of the
approval, renewal, denial, or revocation of their license to carry
firearms. The postcards showed the licensee's name, address and a
statement of the approval, denial, or revocation of the license
application. All the information was "visible to all individuals
processing, mailing and serving the mail, as well as to any
individual receiving the postcard at the address, who may or may
not be the applicant or license holder." The Licensees claimed that
the County's mailing of unenveloped postcards constituted "public
disclosure" in violation of Section 6111(i) of the Firearms Act, 18
Pa. C.S. Section 6111(i).
The trial court dismissed the eight-count complaint based on the
County's preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer. With
respect to Counts I to III, which asserted a violation of Section
6111(i) of the Firearms Act, the trial court held that the
complaint did not state a claim because it did not plead facts to
show that the County had publicly disclosed confidential
information. The trial court further sustained the preliminary
objections to Count III on the basis that Sheriff Anthony qualified
as a high public official and was, thus, immune from liability for
any acts performed in his official capacity, such as those
challenged in the complaint.
The Licensees appealed to the Commonwealth Court, and it affirmed
in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings. It
reversed the trial court's dismissal of Counts I to III of the
complaint.
Upon further appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review
on the issue of "whether the General Assembly intended to abrogate
high public official immunity when it enacted 18 Pa. C.S. Section
6111(i)." By decision in Doe v. Franklin County, 174 A.3d 593 (Pa.
2017) (Doe II), the Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court
and held that the Firearms Act did not abrogate the sheriff's
official immunity. The Supreme Court remanded the matter for
reinstatement of the trial court's order sustaining the preliminary
objections to Count III of the complaint.
Counts I and II of the Licensees' complaint remained active. These
counts challenged the County's use of postcards to notify
applicants of the status of their licenses to carry firearms as a
violation of Section 6111(i) of the Firearms Act.
On remand to the trial court, after the pleadings were closed,
Licensees filed a motion for class certification that described the
class as follows: Those individuals, who allegedly had their
confidential license to carry firearms applicant information
disclosed by the County in violation of their right to privacy and
18 Pa. C.S. Section 6111(i) from Dec. 19, 2012, through the
present.
The County filed an answer and a brief in opposition to Licensees'
motion, asserting, inter alia, that Licensees could not define the
scope of the class members with the precision required by
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1702.
The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and on June 28,
2019, issued an order denying the Licensees' motion for class
certification for the stated reason that the Licensees did not
satisfy the numerosity requirement set forth in Rule 1702.
The Licensees appealed to the Commonwealth Court. On appeal, they
raise two issues for our consideration. First, they assert that the
trial court's order denying class certification is appealable as a
collateral order under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure
313(b), PA. R.A.P. 313(b). Second, they argue that the trial court
erred in denying their request for class certification.
III. Discussion
A. Appealability (Collateral Order)
The Licensees argue that the trial court's denial of their motion
for class certification is a collateral order appealable under
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 313(b) because the issue
of class certification can be severed from the question of whether
the County violated Section 6111(i) of the Firearms Act. They
contend that the right of privacy is a matter too important to be
denied review and that, without the Commonwealth Court's immediate
review, the "ousted members of the class" will be put "out of
court" and their rights irreparably lost by reason of the statute
of limitations.
The County responds that the trial court's order denying class
certification is not a collateral order but, rather, a final order
because the trial court held that Licensees "did not establish a
tort." This holding, according to the County, has effectively
disposed of all remaining legal issues under PA. R.A.P. 341(b) and
ended the litigation.
The Commonwealth Court opines that the trial court's June 28, 2019,
order denying the Licensees' motion for class certification is
appealable as a collateral order. It explains that Pennsylvania
Rule of Appellate Procedure 313(b), PA. R.A.P. 313(b), provides
that an appeal may be taken as of right from a collateral order of
a trial court. The test for a collateral order follows: (1) the
order must be separable from, and collateral to, the main cause of
action; (2) the right involved must be too important to be denied
review; and (3) the question presented must be such that if review
is postponed until after final judgment, the claim will be
irreparably lost.
Plainly, the issue of class certification is not related to and,
thus, separate from the merits of the underlying claims raised in
the complaint. This satisfies the first prong of the collateral
order test. As for the second prong, the interest of Licensees and
the putative class members involves privacy, which involves an
important public policy concern sufficient to satisfy the second
prong. On the third prong of the collateral order doctrine, the
trial court's June 28, 2019, order put class members "out of court
for the purpose of this particular action" and, thus, the issue
concerning class certification meets the urgency prerequisite of
PA. R.A.P. 313(b).
B. Class Certification
The Licensees argue that the trial court erred in denying class
certification because it based its decision on the merits of Counts
I and II and not on Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1702,
PA.R.CIV.P. 1702. They further argue that they satisfied all five
prerequisites for class certification set forth in Rule 1702: (1)
numerosity, (2) commonality, (3) typicality, (4) adequacy of
representation, and (5) fair and efficient method for adjudication.
Next, Licensees contend that they met the requirement of
commonality because the claims arise out of the same course of
conduct, i.e., the County's use of unenveloped postcards with
personal and license status information displayed thereon. Third,
they argue that they satisfied the typicality requirement because
their claims are the same as those of other class members.
The County responds that the Commonwealth Court's prior decision in
Doe I, held that without disclosure of the content to "any other
person," Licensees have not demonstrated any tortious conduct by
the County. Accordingly, their legally insufficient claims should
not proceed to class certification. Further, the Licensees lack
standing to pursue the claims under Section 6111(i) of the Firearms
Act because they have not suffered an injury.
The County also argues that Licensees did not meet the class
certification prerequisites set forth in Rule 1702. The County
asserts that a class action is not a fair or efficient method to
adjudicate the controversy.
The Commonwealth Court states that Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
Procedure 1702 lists the prerequisites to a class action: the class
is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable
[(Numerosity)]; there are questions of law or fact common to the
class [(Commonality)]; the claims or defenses of the representative
parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class
[(Typicality)]; the representative parties will fairly and
adequately assert and protect the interest of the class under the
criteria set forth in Rule 1709 [(Adequacy of Representation)]; and
a class action provides a fair and efficient method for
adjudication of the controversy under the criteria set forth in
Rule 1708 [(Fair and Efficient Method for Adjudication)].
First, the Commonwealth Court finds that the County issued 3,413
licenses to carry firearms in 2013; 2,913 licenses in 2014; 2,995
licenses in 2015; and 4,359 licenses in 2016. The County admitted
that it used postcards to notify successful applicants for licenses
and for renewals of licenses to carry firearms until January 29,
2016. Each postcard recipient is a member of the prospective class.
Thus, the trial court erred and abused its discretion in holding
that Licensees did not satisfy the numerosity requirement for class
certification.
Next, the Commonwealth Court finds that in denying the Licensees'
motion for class certification, the trial court did not analyze the
other prerequisites for class certification. It is not for the
Commonwealth Court, in the first instance, to make findings on
these factors. In light of its conclusion that the Licensees have
sustained their burden for class certification with respect to
numerosity, it vacates the trial court's order and remand this
matter for the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions
of law on whether Licensees have demonstrated the requirements of
commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, and fair and
efficient method of adjudication to have their action certified as
a class action. The trial court will issue its decision within 45
days of the Commonwealth Court's order.
IV. Conclusion
The Commonwealth Court holds that the trial court's June 28, 2019,
order is appealable as a collateral order under Pennsylvania Rule
of Appellate Procedure 313(b). It further holds that the trial
court erred in dismissing Licensees' motion for class certification
based on a lack of numerosity under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
Procedure 1702. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is
vacated, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further
findings and conclusions consistent with its Opinion.
Judge Wallace did not participate in the decision in the case.
V. Order
The Commonwealth Court vacated the June 28, 2019 order of the Court
of Common Pleas of the 39th Judicial District (Franklin County
Branch) (trial court), and remanded the matter to the trial court
for further findings and conclusions consistent with the its
Opinion. Jurisdiction relinquished.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mp9v524f from Leagle.com.
GAINWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Ramos Labor Code Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled IRENE RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; GAINWELL
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; DOES 1 through 20, Case No. 34-2021-00310107,
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on March 14, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-00479-KJM-CKD to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including unfair business practices, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, failure to pay minimum wages for all
hours worked, failure to provide meal and rest periods, waiting
time penalties, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to reimburse
business expenses, and civil penalties.
TDB Communications, Inc. is an employment services provider in
Washington, D.C.
Gainwell Technologies, LLC is a health care company, headquartered
in Conway, Arkansas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Heather D. Hearne, Esq.
THE KULLMAN FIRM
4605 Bluebonnet Blvd., Suite A
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 906-4243
Facsimile: (225) 906-4230
E-mail: hdh@kullmanlaw.com
GEICO: Conditional Certification Bids Must Filed within 90 days
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Matthew Rowden, et al., v.
Government Employees Insurance Company Inc., Case No. 8:21-cv-02240
(D. Md.), the Hon. Judge George Jarrod Hazel entered an order
that:
-- Initial disclosures shall be exchanged in two weeks;
-- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) conditional certification
motions shall be filed within 90 days; and
-- Class certification motions shall be filed within 8 months.
The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Government Employees Insurance Company is a private American
auto insurance company with headquarters in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
It is the second largest auto insurer in the United States, after
State Farm.[CC]
GEICO: Russo Files Conditional Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN RUSSO On Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly situated, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
INSURANCE COMPANY D/B/A GEICO, Case No. 2:21-cv-17234-BRM-JBC
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
the following relief:
1. That GEICO provide Plaintiff, within 10 days from the date
of the Court's Order granting this Motion, the names, last
known addresses, home and cellular phone numbers, and work
and personal e-mail addresses of those individuals who
work or worked for GEICO as Automobile and/or Residential
and/or Catastrophic Adjusters I and/or II and/or III
within the State of New Jersey during the period September
2018 through May 2021;
2. That the Court authorize the Notice attached to Plaintiff'
Memorandum in Support of this Motion, to be immediately
issued by first class mail, electronic mail, and text
message to those individuals whose names are provided;
3. That the Court authorize the Consent to Join Lawsuit Form
attached to Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of this
Motion, to be enclosed with the Notice to Potential
Plaintiffs, along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope;
and
4. That the potential class members be allowed to opt-in to
this action at any time up to 60 days after the mailing
and/or e-mailing of the Notice and Consent Forms to those
individuals whose names are provided.
The Plaintiff Russo, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated current and former Automobile and/or Residential and/or
Catastrophic Adjusters I and/or II and/or III ("Adjusters")
employed within the State of New Jersey by Government Employees
Insurance Company d/b/a GEICO ("GEICO"), hereby submits this Motion
for Notice to Potential Plaintiffs
and for Conditional Certification.
GEICO violated the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), by:
(i) suffering or permitting Plaintiff and the other New
Jersey Adjusters to work more than 40 hours per week;
(ii) directing Plaintiff and the other New Jersey Adjusters
to record less than 40 compensable work hours per week;
and arising therefrom;
(iii) failing to pay Plaintiff and other New Jersey Adjusters
wages at the time-and-one-half rate for all overtime
worked over 40 hours per week as required by the FLSA.
The Government Employees Insurance Company is a private American
auto insurance company with headquarters in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
It is the second largest auto insurer in the United States, after
State Farm.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 1,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I6xrKf
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq., Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (201) 687-9977
Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
E-mail: Aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
Jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com
- and -
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
E-mail: Ggreenberg@zagfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lindsey A. White, Esq.
SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, LLP
One South Street, Suite 1800
Baltimore, MD 21202
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces ERISA Suit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company (GE) disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a consolidated
class action was filed against the company alleging that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties under Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Four putative class action lawsuits have been filed regarding the
oversight of the GE, and those class actions have been consolidated
into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. The consolidated complaint names as defendants GE,
GE Asset Management, current and former GE and GE Asset Management
executive officers and employees who served on fiduciary bodies
responsible for aspects of the GE RSP during the class period.
Like similar lawsuits that have been brought against other
companies in recent years, this action alleges that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA in their oversight of
GE, principally by retaining five proprietary funds that plaintiffs
allege were underperforming as investment options for plan
participants and by charging higher management fees than some
alternative funds.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of GE
RSP participants and beneficiaries from September 26, 2011 through
the date of any judgment. In August and December 2018, the court
issued orders dismissing one count of the complaint and denying
GE's motion to dismiss the remaining counts.
General Electric Company is an industrial company based in
Massachusetts.
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company (GE) disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a putative class
action was filed in New York state court in July 2018 naming as
defendants GE, former GE executive officers, a former member of
GE's Board of Directors. GE filed a motion for leave to appeal
which was denied March 2021.
It alleged violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements related to insurance
reserves and performance of GE's business segments in GE Stock
Direct Plan registration statements and documents incorporated
therein by reference and seeks damages on behalf of shareholders
who acquired GE stock between July 20, 2015 and July 19, 2018
through the GE Stock Direct Plan.
In February 2019, this case was dismissed. In March 2019,
plaintiffs filed an amended derivative complaint naming the same
defendants. In April 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. In October 2019, the court denied GE's motion to dismiss
and stayed the case pending the outcome of the Hachem case. In
November 2019, the plaintiffs moved to re-argue to challenge the
stay, and GE cross-moved to re-argue the denial of the motion to
dismiss and filed a notice of appeal.
The court denied both motions for re-argument, and in November
2020, the Appellate Division First Department affirmed the court's
denial of GE's motion to dismiss. In January 2021, GE filed a
motion for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, and
that motion was denied in March 2021.
General Electric Company is an industrial company based in
Massachusetts.
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS: Montague Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSEPH MONTAGUE, MICHAEL DUPONT, CURTIS MOORE,
CHARISSEE TABOTABO, RENAE HILLOCK, UNINI ODAIBO, MICHAEL LATHE,
BRENT MILLER, GIANCARLO VELLEJO, and BENJAMIN TACDERAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS TO EMPLOYMENT, INC. and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 37-2022-00004601-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on March 14,
2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00342-MMA-NLS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
California Labor Code by failing to fulfill its promise of a
five-year employment contract with the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated employees. As a result, the Plaintiffs and the Class have
been damaged by the loss of wages they were promised for terms of
no less than five years.
Global Connections to Employment, Inc. is a provider of employment
services, with its principal place of business in Florida. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel B. Chammas, Esq.
Min K. Kim, Esq.
FORD & HARRISON LLP
350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 237-2400
Facsimile: (213) 237-2401
E-mail: dchammas@fordharrison.com
mkim@fordharrison.com
GOOGLE LLC: Left Field Sues Over Unauthorized Button and Webpages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Left Field Holdings, a Florida limited liability company, Left
Field Holdings II, a Florida limited liability company, Left Field
Holdings III, a Florida limited liability company, Left Field
Holdings IV, a Florida limited liability company, Left Field
Holdings V, a Florida limited liability company, and Left Field
Holdings VI, a Florida limited liability company, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-01462 (N.D. Cal., March 8, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's alleged deceptive practices and misappropriation of
Plaintiffs' goodwill and tradenames in connection with Google's
button and webpages in violation of the Lanham Act.
According to the complaint, prior to 2019, when Google received a
user's search for a restaurant, Google responded with a "search
engine results page" that displayed three categories of information
including (i) information particular to the restaurant the consumer
was then searching for, including the restaurant's website, phone
number, and address -- which Google displayed on the right-hand
side of the screen; (ii) a list of "natural" search results,
generated from Google's proprietary "search algorithm" -- displayed
on the left-hand side of the screen; and (iii) 2-3 paid
advertisements of companies wishing to promote their own websites,
brands, and service offerings -- which Google displayed as "Ads"
just above the "natural" search results. Googlea made money from
this activity upon a user clicking on an advertisement and visiting
the advertiser's website.
The complaint asserts that Defendant's motive is to increase orders
and clicks by deliberately confusing consumers into entering and
interacting with its websites by prominently featuring Plaintiffs'
and class members' tradenames next to its button and within its
webpages. But, like everyone else, Google cannot use the
restaurant-class members' hard-earned tradenames without their
approval, much less to suggest associations and sponsorships that
do not exist; nor can it engage in false advertising by
misrepresenting the nature and characteristics of its own
commercial activities and those of its advertisers.
On behalf of a nationwide class of restaurants subjected to
Google's deceptive practices and misappropriation of their goodwill
and tradenames in connection with Google's button and webpages,
Plaintiffs bring this action to enjoin Google and to seek redress
for Google's deceptive and unlawful conduct.
Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include a search engine, online advertising technologies, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
Bruce J. Wecker, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
E-mail: bsweeney@hausfeld.com
mlehmann@hausfeld.com
bwecker@hausfeld.com
- and -
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
Bruce S. Sperling, Esq.
Eamon Kelly, Esq.
Tim Sperling, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 641-3200
E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com
bss@sperling-law.com
ekelly@sperling-law.com
tsperling@sperling-law.com
- and -
Jason A. Zweig, Esq.
Seth Meyer, Esq.
Alex Dravillas, Esq.
KELLER LENKNER LLC
150 N. Riverside Plaza Suite 4100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 216-8667
E-mail: jaz@kellerlenkner.com
sam@kellerlenkner.com
ajd@kellerlenkner.com
- and -
Irving Scher, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
E-mail: ischer@hausfeld.com
HALAL GUYS: Hegazy Seeks Food Servers, Vendors' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
AHMED HEGAZY, SHRIEF SROR, RAMIZ SHEHATTA, WALID SOLTAN, AHMED
ABOUELKHAIR, and AHMED MONEIM on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE HALAL GUYS, INC., ALL
53 SW INC., NIGHT 53 SE INC., THE HALAL GUYS FRANCHISE INC.,
ALTAWHID FOOD SUPPLY INC., AHMED ELSAKA, ABDELBASET ELSAYED,
MOHAMED ABOUELENEIN a/k/a MOHAMMED ABOUELENEIN, AHMED ABOUELENEIN,
and ABDULLAH ABOUELENEIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01880
(S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2022) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
unpaid wages including overtime and spread of hours compensation,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and all
other appropriate legal and equitable relief, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs were former employees of the Defendants working as
food servers/food vendors.
The Defendants operate what they call a "global enterprise, with
over 400+ new restaurants in development worldwide" serving
American Halal food throughout New York City and around the
world.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Harrison, Esq.
Julie Salwen, Esq.
HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
110 State Highway 35, Suite 10
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (718) 799-9111
E-mail: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com
jsalwen@nynjemploymentlaw.com
HONEYWELL INT'L: Shareholder Suit Settlement Deal Awaits Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a settlement
agreement for the class action lawsuit remains subject to final
court approval.
On October 31, 2018, David Kanefsky, a Honeywell shareholder, filed
a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey (the Court) alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 related to the prior
accounting for Bendix asbestos claims.
An Amended Complaint was filed on December 30, 2019, and on
February 7, 2020, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss. On May 18,
2020, the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss.
On December 7, 2021, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement
(Settlement Agreement) and Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the Settlement Agreement, which includes payment by
Honeywell of $10 million to settle the claims in dispute.
Honeywell International Inc. invents and commercializes
technologies based in North Carolina.
IMEDIA BRANDS: Laura Duffek Files Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Laura Duffek, on behalf of
herself, and all others similarly situated, V. iMedia Brands, Inc.,
Case No. 0:21-cv-01413-ECT-BRT (D. Minn.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting her Motion for class
certification.
Specifically, the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify a class,
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
defined as:
"All individuals who are or have been employed at Defendant
iMedia Brands, Inc.’s Minnesota and Kentucky employment sites
who were terminated in March 2020 and April 2020, excluding
part-time employees as defined by the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 2101-2109,
and employees who signed a class action waiver or release of
claims."
The Plaintiff also moves for the appointment of her counsel as
class counsel for the proposed class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(g).
iMedia Brands operates as a media company. The Company offers
interactive advertising, marketing, video, and live television
production services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 2,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I8YF32
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bert Black, Esq.
Lauren A. D'Cruz, Esq.
SCHAEFER HALLEEN, LLC
412 South Fourth Street, Suite 1050
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Telephone: (612) 294-2600
Facsimile: (612) 294-2640
E-mail: bblack@schaeferhalleen.com
ldcruz@schaeferhalleen.com
INCYTE CORP: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Novartis
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOVARTIS PHARMA AG v.
INCYTE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00400-GHW-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein entered an scheduling and
discovery order as follows:
1. All pre-trial applications, including those relating to
scheduling and discovery, shall be made to the undersigned
(except motions to dismiss or for judgment on the
pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or
for class certification). All applications must comply
with this Court's Individual Practices, which are
available through the Clerk's Office or at:
https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-gabriel-w-gorenstein.
2. The parties should write to the Court at any time that
they wish to participate in Court-sponsored mediation.
3. All discovery (as well as requests for admissions) must be
initiated in time to be concluded by the deadline for all
discovery.
4. Discovery motions -- that is, any application pursuant to
Rules 26 through 37 or 45 -- not only must comply with
par. 2.A. of the Court's Individual Practices but also
must be made promptly after the cause for such a motion
arises. In addition, absent extraordinary circumstances no
such application will be considered if made later than 30
days prior to the close of discovery. Untimely
applications will be denied.
5. Any application for an extension of the time limitations
with respect to any deadlines in this matter must be made
as soon as the cause for the extension becomes known to
the party making the application and must be made in
accordance with par. 1.E of the Court's Individual
Practices. The application must state the position of all
other parties on the proposed extension and must show good
cause therefor not foreseeable as of the date of this
Order. "Good cause" as used in this paragraph does not
include circumstances within the control of counsel or the
party. Any application not in compliance with this
paragraph will be denied. Failure to comply with the terms
of this Order may also result in sanctions.
Incyte is an American multinational pharmaceutical company with
headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware, and Morges, Switzerland.
Novartis is a Swiss multinational pharmaceutical corporation based
in Basel, Switzerland.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J6b352 at no extra charge.[CC]
JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: Suit Seeks to Certify Non-Pregnant Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.C. and 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; and MARK WILSON, as the Facility Administrator of
Jefferson County Correctional Facility, Case No. 6:22-cv-190-DNH/ML
(N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
a. certifying (i) a class of all non-pregnant individuals who
are or will be detained at the Jefferson County
Correctional Facility and had or will have prescriptions
for agonist medication for opioid use disorder at the time
of entry into the Defendants' custody, as well as (ii) two
subclasses, one each for class members subject to pretrial
and postconviction custody, respectively;
b. appointing them as class representatives; and
c. appointing undersigned counsel as counsel for the class.
Jefferson County is a county on the northern border of the U.S.
state of New York.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 1,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KEZhPC
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Antony P.F. Gemmell, Esq.
Terry T. Ding, Esq.
Molly K. Biklen, Esq.
NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 607-3300
Facsimile: (212) 607-3318
E-mail: agemmell@nyclu.org
JUUL LABS: American Preparatory Academy Sues Over Nicotine Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMERICAN PREPARATORY ACADEMY, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01552 (N.D. Cal., March 11, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
American Preparatory Academy is a tuition-free public charter
school with its offices located on 12892 Pony Express Road in
Draper, Utah.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Center Line Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CENTER LINE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01558 (N.D. Cal., March 11, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Center Line Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 26400 Arsenal in Center Line, Michigan.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Filer School Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
FILER SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-01535 (N.D. Cal., March 10, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Filer School District is a unified school district with its offices
located at 700 B Stevens Avenue in Filer, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Grace School Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
GRACE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-01594 (N.D. Cal., March 14, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Grace School District is a unified school district with its offices
located at 605 South 4th West in Grace, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Uintah School Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
UINTAH SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01554 (N.D. Cal., March 11, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Uintah School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 826 South 1500 East, Naples, Utah.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Sauquoit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SAUQUOIT VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A
PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01555 (N.D. Cal., March 11,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Sauquoit Valley Central School District is a unified school
district with its offices located at 2601 Oneida Street, Sauquoit,
New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, West Ada Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01595 (N.D. Cal., March 14, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
West Ada School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 1303 East Central Drive in Meridian, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Eden Central Sues Over E-Cigarette Addiction in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDEN CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01557 (N.D. Cal., March 11, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Eden Central School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 8289 North Main Street in Eden, New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Faces Alamogordo Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALAMOGORDO PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01551 (N.D. Cal., March 11, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Alamogordo Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 1211 Hawaii Avenue in Alamogordo, New Mexico.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Faces COSSA Academy Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
CANYON-OWYHEE SCHOOL SERVICE AGENCY (COSSA) ACADEMY, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS,
INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS
PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA
CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP
MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01540 (N.D. Cal.,
March 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law
and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Canyon-Owyhee School Service Agency (COSSA) Academy is a unified
school district with its offices located at 109 Penny Lane in
Wilder, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Faces Wayne County Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Addiction
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01596 (N.D. Cal., March 14, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Wayne County School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 79 North 100 West in Bicknell, Utah.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Granite School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GRANITE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01598 (N.D. Cal., March 14, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Granite School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 2500 South State Street in Salt Lake City,
Utah.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Kuna School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
--------------------------------------------------------------
KUNA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-01592 (N.D. Cal., March 14, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Kuna School District is a unified school district with its offices
located at 711 East Porter Road in Kuna, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Leland Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Michigan
------------------------------------------------------------------
LELAND PUBLIC SCHOOL, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-01541 (N.D. Cal., March 10, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Leland Public School is a unified school district with its offices
located at 200 North Grand Avenue in Leland, Michigan.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Parma School Suit Claims E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
----------------------------------------------------------------
PARMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-01562 (N.D. Cal., March 11, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis.
Parma School District is a unified school district with its offices
located at 805 East McConnell in Parma, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Payette School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
--------------------------------------------------------------
PAYETTE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01560 (N.D. Cal., March 11, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Payette School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 20 North 12th Street in Payette, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Prairie Heights Suit Alleges Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PRAIRIE HEIGHTS COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.
F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01574 (N.D. Cal., March 14,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Indiana Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Prairie Heights Community School Corporation is a public school
district with its offices located in LaGrange, Indiana.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
JUUL LABS: Solvay Union Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign
----------------------------------------------------------------
SOLVAY UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01556 (N.D. Cal., March 11, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Solvay Union Free School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 299 Bury Drive, Syracuse, New York.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Thermalito Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
THERMALITO UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.
F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01553 (N.D. Cal., March 11,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Thermalito Union Elementary School District is a unified school
district with its offices located at 400 Grand Avenue in Oroville,
California.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
KENTUCKY: Hammond Bid to File Amended Complaint Tossed
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TODD HAMMOND v. WARDEN
MR. PAUL, et al., Case No. : 5:22-cv-00014-HRW (E.D. Ky.), the Hon.
Judge Henry R. Wilhoit Jr., entered an order:
1. denying Hammond's motion for leave to file an amended
complaint;
2. denying Hammond's motion to appoint counsel;
3. dismissing without prejudice Hammond's complaint to his
ability to re-file his claims in a new case after the
administrative remedy process is complete; and
4. denying as moot all remaining requests for relief,
including Hammond's motion to certify as a class action,
motion to compel, and motion for extension of time.
The Court has considered the relevant factors and concluded that
this case does not present the kind of extraordinary circumstances
which would warrant the appointment of counsel for Hammond. The
claims asserted by Hammond are not unduly complex and Hammond has
adequately presented them in his complaint. Thus, his motion to
appoint counsel will be denied.
The Plaintiff Todd Hammond is a federal inmate currently confined
at the Federal Medical Center (FMC)-Lexington located in Lexington,
Kentucky. Proceeding without an attorney, Hammond previously filed
a civil complaint against prison officials pursuant to Bivens v.
Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). However,
Hammond did not pay the $350.00 filing fee and the $52.00
administrative fee, nor did he file a motion to pay the filing fee
in installments under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly, on January
28, 2022, the Court entered an Order directing Hammond to either
pay the $402.00 filing and administrative fees or file a
properly-supported motion using the Court-supplied forms within 30
days.
While that deadline has not yet expired, Hammond has since filed
multiple letters and motions related to payment of the filing fee,
none of which are a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On
February 8, 2022, Hammond filed a letter with the Clerk of the
Court submitting a copy of a BP-199 form requesting that $400 be
withdrawn from his inmate account and paid to the Clerk of the
Court for filing fees.
However, the copy of the BP-199 form submitted by Hammond was not
complete, as it was not signed by either the Approving Official or
the Deposit Fund Tech, and no payment has been received by the
Clerk of the Court.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36iGR8w at no extra charge.[CC]
KLLM TRANSPORT: Nieves Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JUAN NIEVES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KLLM TRANSPORT SERVICES, LLC and DOES
1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. CIV SB 2134796, was removed from
the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San
Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on March 11, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-00449-SB-SHK to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code including failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest breaks,
failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to timely pay
wages, failure to timely pay final wages, and failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements.
KLLM Transport Services, LLC is a provider of transportation
services based in California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Maria C. Roberts, Esq.
Dessi N. Day, Esq.
GREENE & ROBERTS
402 West Broadway, Suite 1025
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 398-3400
Facsimile: (619) 330-4907
E-mail: mroberts@greeneroberts.com
dday@greeneroberts.com
LOCAL IN MEMPHIS: Leopard Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
BAILEY LEOPARD AND AMANDA LEVITCH, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOCAL IN MEMPHIS, LLC,
a Tennessee limited liability company, THE VAULT ON GE PATTERSON,
LLC, a Tennessee limited liability company, E & H 2.0, LLC, a
Tennessee limited liability company, and TYSON BRIDGE, an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02154-TLP-TMP (W.D. Tenn.,
March 8, 2022) is brought against the Defendants as a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking to recover unpaid
minimum wages, overtime, and other damages owed to Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated individuals.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid
tipped employees at one of Defendants' restaurants within the past
three years preceding the filing of this collective action lawsuit.
More specifically, Plaintiff Leopard worked as a server for
Defendants at The Paramount restaurant and The Backlot Sandwich
Shop, and Plaintiff Levitch worked as a bartender/server at
Earnestine & Hazel's bar/restaurant, The Vault restaurant, and The
Backlot Sandwich Shop.
The Defendants collectively own and operate The Paramount
restaurant, The Backlot Sandwich Shop, Earnestine & Hazel's, and
The Vault.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
B. Alan Matthews, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
E-mail: rmorelli@jsyc.com
amatthews@jsyc.com
MATTHEW DAUS: TLC-Licensed Drivers Get Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the two class action lawsuits filed against Matthew Daus, et
al., the Hon. Judge Richard J. Sullivan entered an order that
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted as to the
issue of liability and denied in all other respects.
The following class is hereby certified under Rule 23(a) and
23(b)(3):
1. Class: "All TLC-licensed drivers whose licenses were
suspended by the TLC based on the driver having been
arrested on a criminal charge any time between June 28,
2003, until February 18, 2020."
2. Class Representatives: Jonathan Nnebe, Eduardo Avenaut,
Khairul Amin, Anthony Stallworth, Parichay Barman, and
Noor Tani are appointed as the Class Representatives.
3. Class Counsel: Daniel Ackman, Shannon Liss-Riordan, and
David T. Goldberg are appointed as class counsel.
The further entered an order that:
-- The parties shall meet and confer and submit an agreed-
upon form of notice that satisfies Rule 23(c)(2)(B). In
the event that the parties are unable to agree on
specific language in the proposed notice, they shall
submit a joint document in Word format that sets forth
the areas of disagreement, with the Plaintiffs'
proposed language designated in red and the Defendants'
proposed language designated in blue, along with a
joint letter setting forth the reasons for their
respective proposals. The parties shall also jointly
submit a plan for the dissemination of the proposed
notice, and must work together to generate a class list
to be used in disseminating notice. The proposed notice
and plan of dissemination, as well as a proposed order
granting approval, shall be filed with the Court on or
before March 31, 2022.
-- The parties shall appear for a conference in Courtroom
21C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, N.Y. 10007, on
Tuesday, April 19, 2022, at 10:00am, to discuss next
steps in the litigation, including how the
individualized hearings as to damages shall proceed.
The lawsuits are captioned as:
"JONATHAN NNEBE, et al., v. MATTHEW DAUS, et al., Case No.
06-cv-4991-RJS (S.D.N.Y.);" and
ANTHONY STALLWORTH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, et al., v. MEERA JOSHI, et al., Case No.
17-cv-7119-RJS (S.D.N.Y.)."
A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t7jyre at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2818: Class Certification Sought in GM Suit
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned re: General Motors Corp Air
Conditioning Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL 2818,
Case No. 2:18-md-02818-MFL (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the Classes each relate to a set of "Class
Vehicles," defined as:
"All model year 2014-17 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and GMC
Sierra 1500 pick-up trucks, and all model year 2015-17
Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV, Chevrolet Suburban,
Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon sport utility vehicles
("SUVs");"
Excluded from the Class Vehicles are models equipped with
LV1 or LV3 ("6-cylinder" or "V6" engine), except for the
following, which are included: model year 2014-15 vehicles
built at the Arlington, Flint or Fort Wayne assembly
plants on or before December 18, 2014 or the Silao
assembly plant on or before October 23, 2014;"
2. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and
3. appointing Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel as Class Counsel.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek to certify the following
classes:
1. The State Fraud Classes under Rule 23(b)(3), each
defined as:
"All persons who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in
[State Fraud classes]."
2. The State Warranty Classes under Rule 23(b)(3), defined
as:
"All persons or entities that purchased or leased a
Class Vehicle in [State Warranty Classes], and who
received warranty service for the AC Defect within the
term limits of GM’s warranty.
3. A Declaratory Judgment Class under Rule 23(b)(2),
defined as:
"All persons or entities that purchased or leased a
Class Vehicle in the United States."
There are State Fraud classes, one each for Class members who
purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in Alabama, Arizona,
California, Florida, Michigan, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee,
Texas, and Washington. Although Plaintiff Leslie Griffin asserts
claims under Georgia’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, she
is only pursuing declaratory (and related) relief under this law.
There are two State Warranty Classes, one each for Class members
who purchased, leased, or received warranty service for the AC
Defect in California or Michigan.
The Plaintiffs are Rodney Martin (Alabama), Kenneth Gay (Arizona),
Carl Williams (California), Clarence Larry (California), Erica
Wolfe (Florida), Andrew C. Hill (Florida), Leslie Griffin
(Georgia), Jonathan Robinson (Michigan), Corey Steketee (Michigan),
Mario DiMeo (New York), Hayes Ellis (Oklahoma), Billy Frank
(Tennessee), John O’Brien (Tennessee), Marcus Bell (Texas), Aaron
Howard (Washington), and Jane Howard (Washington).
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 1,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pZx1PK
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Annika K. Martin, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN
& BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th fl.
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
E-mail: akmartin@lchb.com
- and -
Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
& SPRENGEL LLP
1101 Market St., Suite 2650
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 864-2800
E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 West University, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48306
Telephone: (248) 841-2201
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
1109 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (610) 200-0580
E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
MERRITT HOSPITALITY: Gonzalez Labor Suit Goes to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MONICA ESPARZA GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. MERRITT HOSPITALITY, LLC; HEI
HOSPITALITY, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
37-2022-00004806-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on March 10, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00328-BTM-KSC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide
compliant meal and rest break premiums, failure to furnish accurate
itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses,
and waiting time penalties.
Merritt Hospitality, LLC is a hospitality company headquartered in
Norwalk, Connecticut.
HEI Hospitality, LLC is a hospitality company headquartered in
Norwalk, Connecticut. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey P. Fuchsman, Esq.
BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP
15760 Ventura Boulevard, Eighteenth Floor
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 508-3700
Facsimile: (818) 506-4827
MEWBOURNE OIL: Hay Creek Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hay Creek Royalties, LLC,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. Mewbourne
Oil Company, Case No. 5:20-cv-01199-F (W.D. Okla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the Settlement Class for Settlement purposes:
"All non-excluded persons or entities who: (1) received
late payments under the Production Revenue Standards Act
(PRSA) from Defendant (or Defendant's designee) for oil-
and-gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells during the Claim
Period; or (2) whose proceeds were remitted to unclaimed
property divisions of any government entity by the
the Defendant during the Claim Period; and (3) whose
payments or whose unclaimed property did not include the
statutory interest required by the PRSA;"
Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant, its
affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and
directors; and (2) agencies, departments, or
instrumentalities of the United States of America or the
State of Oklahoma;
2. preliminarily approving the Settlement;
3. appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative for the
Settlement Class;
4. appointing Reagan E. Bradford and Ryan K. Wilson of
Bradford & Wilson PLLC as Co-Lead Class Counsel and David
R. Gleason and Charles V. Knutter as Additional Class
Counsel for the Settlement Class;
5. approving the form and manner of the proposed Notice;
6. appointing a Settlement Administrator;
7. appointing an Escrow Agent; and
8. setting a hearing date for final approval of the
Settlement and application for an award of the Plaintiff's
Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses and Administration,
Notice, and Distribution Costs, and a Case Contribution
Award to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff has obtained an outstanding recovery for the
Settlement Class. Specifically, the Plaintiff has reached a
settlement with Defendant worth $3.95 million in cash value for the
Plaintiff's class claims for statutory interest owed for late
payments of oil-and-gas proceeds under Oklahoma law.
Having reached this agreement with the Defendant and recovery for
the Settlement Class, the Plaintiff now respectfully requests that
the Court preliminarily approve the class settlement.
The Plaintiff initiated this action on November 25, 2020, alleging
that the Defendant violated the PRSA, by failing to pay statutory
interest owed on the payment of oil-and-gas proceeds made outside
of the timelines set out in the PRSA.
The Defendant answered on January 11, 2021. The parties conferred
and submitted a joint status report and discovery plan to the Court
on January 28, 2021. The parties further jointly moved for a
proposed protective order (Doc. 22), and the Court
entered the protective order on March 30, 2021. Also on February 2,
the Court held a scheduling and status conference and entered the
first Scheduling Order.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 1, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MM6Cyq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
431 W. Main Street, Suite D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 698-2770
E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
ryan@bradwil.com
- and -
David R. Gleason, Esq.
Charles V. Knutter, Esq.
MORICOLI KELLOGG & GLEASON, P.C.
211 N. Robinson
One Leadership Square, St. 1350
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 235–3357
E-mail: dgleason@moricoli.com
cknutter@moricoli.com
MFT TRUCKING: Cruz Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Cruz and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff(s)
v. MFT Trucking LLC, and Roberto J. Meloni Defendants, Case No.
6:22-cv-00484 (M.D. Fla., March 7, 2022) is an action to recover
money damages from the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Cruz was hired as a non-exempted, full-time employee from
approximately December 15, 2017, to December 23, 2021, or more than
4 years. However, for FLSA purposes, Plaintiff's relevant period of
employment is 152 weeks. He worked at Ikea Stores as a warehouse
employee, mover and driver.
MFT Trucking LLC is a Florida-based cargo and freight moving
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Summary Judgment in Rakestraw Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAULETTE E. RAKESTRAW, On behalf of herself and all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. NATIONSTAR
MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-12850 (11th Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the
district court's order granting summary judgment to Nationstar.
I. Introduction
In the purported class action, Rakestraw asserts a single claim
against Nationstar, the servicer of her home mortgage, under the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. Section
2605, et seq. RESPA, among other things, requires that loan
servicers provide information to borrowers about their loans upon
written request. Rakestraw alleges that Nationstar's
"incomprehensible" responses to her requests for information did
not comply with RESPA's requirements.
The district court granted summary judgment to Nationstar, finding
its responses to Rakestraw's requests for information adequate, and
that, regardless, Rakestraw failed to show actual damages -- a
required element of a RESPA claim. Rakestraw appeals.
II. Background
In April 2004, Rakestraw obtained a loan to purchase a home in
Hiram, Georgia. From April 2004 to April 2013, Countrywide Home
Loans and Bank of America serviced Rakestraw's loan. On April 1,
2013, servicing of the loan transferred from Bank of America to
Nationstar.
On Nov. 28, 2017, Nationstar received a letter from Rakestraw
requesting "1) A complete payment history that includes an
explanation and breakdown of all charges and credits applied during
the life of the loan dating back to 2003, the origination of the
loan. 2) A certified copy of the original note in its current
condition/state. 3) A signed affidavit from someone in the company
stating that the note is the original, not a scanned copy."
All parties agree that this letter constituted a qualified written
request ("QWR") under RESPA, even though it only requested
information and did not assert any errors relating to Nationstar's
servicing of Rakestraw's loan. Two days later, Nationstar responded
to the November 2017 QWR.
Then on April 16, 2018, Rakestraw sent a second QWR to Nationstar
requesting information but, again, not identifying any errors. This
time, however, Rakestraw asked for "an explanation and detailed
breakdown of all" Bank of America payments and "an explanation and
detailed breakdown of all escrow payments" for the entire history
of the loan. Four days later, Nationstar responded with a copy of
Rakestraw's updated transaction history reflecting the period
during which Nationstar serviced the loan through March 13, 2018
along with the transaction history for the loan from 2004-2006 when
Countrywide was the servicer. Rakestraw submitted a third request
for information on May 4, 2018.
Nationstar responded to this QWR six days later, sending Rakestraw
a copy of the note, an updated transaction history, escrow history
for the period during which Nationstar had serviced the loan, a
copy of the transaction history from 2004-2006, and a copy of its
response to Rakestraw's second QWR (which sought much of the same
information).
Later that month, on May 29, 2018, Nationstar received yet another
QWR from Rakestraw. Nationstar responded two days later providing,
among other things, account histories for the entire life of the
loan, a code sheet for Nationstar's transaction history, contact
information for a Nationstar representative, and its response to
her April QWR.
In June 2018, Rakestraw filed the purported class action against
Nationstar. In her amended class action complaint, Rakestraw
alleged that Nationstar violated RESPA by "refusing to provide a
complete and comprehensible account history and the explanation of
charges and credits" which she requested in four separate QWRs.
Accordingly, she sought actual and statutory damages in addition to
attorney's fees and costs.
After some discovery, Nationstar filed a motion for summary
judgment in November 2020, along with its statement of undisputed
material facts. In its motion, Nationstar contended that its
responses to Rakestraw's four requests for information complied
with RESPA and that, even if they did not, Rakestraw failed to show
that she was entitled to actual or statutory damages. Although
Rakestraw responded to Nationstar's motion, she failed to provide
her own statement of undisputed facts as is required by the local
rules. In December 2020, she filed a motion seeking leave to amend
her summary judgment response to add a statement of undisputed
facts or, alternatively, to file a surreply.
The magistrate judge issued an Order and Final Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") in March 2021. The magistrate judge first
recommended denying Rakestraw's motion for leave to amend because
she failed to offer any legitimate justification for not filing a
statement of undisputed facts, deeming as admitted the facts
alleged in Nationstar's statement of undisputed facts as a result.
The magistrate judge recommended that the district court grant
summary judgment to Nationstar because Nationstar "adequately
responded" to Rakestraw's QWRs under RESPA as a matter of law, and
that Rakestraw failed to create a genuine issue of fact or show
damages -- actual or statutory.
Ms. Rakestraw objected to the R&R's recommendation to grant summary
judgment but did not object to the recommendation to deny her
motion to amend her summary judgment response with a statement of
undisputed facts. The district court overruled Rakestraw's
objections. The district court specifically found that Nationstar's
responses complied with RESPA and that Nationstar "performed a
'reasonable search' as required by RESPA" in connection with
Rakestraw's request for information from Bank of America.
Concluding that Rakestraw failed to demonstrate a material issue as
to: (1) whether Nationstar's responses complied with RESPA; (2)
whether Nationstar conducted a reasonable search for records
connected to a prior servicer; (3) whether Rakestraw incurred
actual damages; and (4) whether Nationstar's conduct entitled her
to statutory damages, the district court adopted the R&R and
granted summary judgment to Nationstar.
Ms. Rakestraw timely appealed.
III. Discussion
On appeal, Rakestraw says that Nationstar's handling of her
requests for information violated RESPA in two ways. First, she
claims that the account histories Nationstar provided her were
"incomprehensible" and thus did not provide her with the
information she requested per RESPA's requirements. Second, she
says that Nationstar failed to perform a reasonable search for
information that she requested relating to a prior servicer and
that Nationstar failed to give her proper notice that the
information was not available to it.
Nationstar counters that it adequately responded to the substance
of Rakestraw's QWRs and that it performed a reasonable search and
properly notified Rakestraw that it did not have some of the
requested information.
A. Nationstar's Responses Were Adequate Under RESPA
The Eleventh Circuit holds that it is undisputed evidence shows
that Nationstar's responses to Rakestraw's four QWRs complied with
the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. In response
to a series of repetitive QWRs, Nationstar provided Rakestraw with
the information she requested (with the exception of the
unavailable information discussed in the Order) -- including
transaction histories covering the entire life of the loan.
Moreover, all of Nationstar's responses provided the contact
information of a person who could assist Rakestraw in the future.
In doing so, Nationstar complied with RESPA's response
obligations.
B. Nationstar Conducted a Reasonable Search and Gave Proper Written
Notice to Rakestraw
As discussed previously, RESPA requires a servicer to inform the
borrower in writing that it does not have the requested
information, the basis for that determination, and contact
information for a representative.
In response to Rakestraw's request for a more legible version of
the Bank of America transaction histories and a code sheet for
those histories, Nationstar told her, in writing, that it did not
have those documents and could not attest to how the prior servicer
treated payments on Rakestraw's account. Like all of Nationstar's
responses, this one provided contract information for a person who
could assist Rakestraw in the future. This is all RESPA requires.
In Ms. Rakestraw's view, however, RESPA required Nationstar to
"investigate past its own files" and notify her, not only that the
requested information was unavailable to it, but also that
"Nationstar could not obtain it and why it could not obtain it."
Yet Ms. Rakestraw points to no authority -- from the text of the
statute, its accompanying regulations, or cases from the Eleventh
Circuit -- suggesting that to conduct a "reasonable search" a loan
servicer must search beyond its own records and that the word
"unavailable" really means "unobtainable." And as discussed
previously, RESPA places the burden on Rakestraw to show that
Nationstar did not conduct a reasonable search—not on Nationstar
to prove that its search was reasonable.
Accordingly, Ms. Rakestraw has failed to show that Nationstar
conducted an unreasonable search or improperly notified her that it
did not have the requested information.
IV. Conclusion
The district court did not err when it granted summary judgment in
favor of Nationstar. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8rztdu from Leagle.com.
NEVADA: Court Denies Smith's Bid for Copy of Harris Class Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMMAR HARRIS, Plaintiff v. CHARLES DANIELS, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00293-JAD-NJK (D. Nev.), Magistrate
Judge Nancy J. Koppe of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada denies Willie Smith's motion for a copy of the class action
complaint.
On Feb. 28, 2022, the Court issued an order directing the Plaintiff
to the pay the full $402 filing fee for his 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
action or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis on
April 19, 2022. In response, the Plaintiff states that he does not
have to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in
forma pauperis because he did not file a Section 1983 action but
instead brought a class action lawsuit under different federal
statutes.
The Plaintiff is still required to pay the $402 filing fee in the
case or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1914(a)-(b), any party instituting a
civil action, such as this one, is required to pay the $350 filing
fee and $52 administrative fee. Even though the Court may have
mischaracterized the Plaintiff's complaint as a Section 1983
action, Judge Koppe says the Plaintiff is still required to pay the
filing fee for this civil action. The Plaintiff is required to
comply with the Court's Feb. 28, 2022 order and must either pay the
full $402 filing fee for the civil action or submit an application
to proceed in forma pauperis on April 19, 2022. If the Plaintiff
fails to timely comply with the Feb. 28, 2022 order, the case will
be subject to dismissal without prejudice.
With respect to the Plaintiff's attempt to bring a class-action
lawsuit, Judge Koppe warns the Plaintiff that pro se litigants have
the right to plead and conduct their own cases personally. Pro se
litigants, such as the Plaintiff, have no authority to represent
anyone other than themselves. For this reason, Judge Koppe denies
"class-member" Willie Smith's motion for a copy of the class action
complaint.
Judge Koppe also denies the Plaintiff's motion for the law
librarian to submit all 29 pages of his complaint to the Court. The
complaint submitted at Docket No. 1-1 is 29 pages long.
The Plaintiff must comply with the Court's Feb. 28, 2022, order
directing the Plaintiff to pay the full filing fee or submit a
fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, no later
than April 19, 2022.
Judge Koppe denies the motion for court order and the motion for
copy of class action lawsuit.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8kf278 from Leagle.com.
NEW YORK, NY: Casis Suit Seeks Proper Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
SALLY CASIS, WINSTON FARRELL, JERMAINE HARRISON, SERGIO RIVERA,
SHAWN SAMUEL, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY
OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01926 (S.D.N.Y., March 7,
2022) is a collective action in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act arising from the Defendant's unlawful deprivation of
Plaintiffs' right to overtime compensation and failure to properly
calculate the regular rate of pay upon which Plaintiffs' overtime
rate is based.
The Plaintiffs are, and have been at all times material, employed
by Defendant in the positions of Urban Parks Ranger, Associate
Urban Parks Ranger, and/or Associate Park Service Worker in the
City's Department of Parks and Recreation.
Defendant City of New York is, among other things, a juridical
entity amenable to suit under the FLSA in that it is, and was at
all times material hereto, a public agency and "employer" within
the meaning of the FLSA, says the complaint.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
Diana J. Nobile, Esq.
Sarah M. Block, Esq.
John W. Stewart, Esq.
McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
1101 Vermont Ave., N.W. Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 833-8855
E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com
djn@mselaborlaw.com
smb@mselaborlaw.com
jws@mselaborlaw.com
- and -
Hope Pordy, Esq.
Elizabeth Sprotzer, Esq.
SPIVAK LIPTON, LLP
1700 Broadway Suite 2100
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 765-2100
E-mail: hpordy@spivaklipton.com
esprotzer@spivaklipton.com
NEXTERA ENERGY: Branscomb Seeks Executive Assistants' Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE LYNN BRANSCOMB, on behalf of herself and collectively for
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEXTERA ENERGY
RESOURCES, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, and DANIEL
GERARD, individually, Defendants, Case No. 9:22-cv-80350 (S.D.
Fla., March 5, 2022) is an action for declaratory judgment, to
recover monetary damages in the form of unpaid overtime
compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated
damages, to redress the deprivation of rights secured to Plaintiff
and other employees similarly situated by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an executive assistant
from July 2020 until present. She was misclassified by Defendants
as "salaried exempt," as they improperly did with many other people
working for them in similar posts.
Nextera Energy Resources, LLC is a wholesale electricity supplier
based in Juno Beach, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esq.
SCHWARZBERG & ASSOCIATES
2751 South Dixie Highway, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33405
Telephone: (561) 659-3300
Facsimile: (561) 693-4540
E-mail: steve@schwarzberglaw.com
NOVANT HEALTH: Darroux Class Suit Removed to W.D. North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICANDRIA DARROUX, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NOVANT HEALTH, INC. d/b/a NOVANT
HEALTH PRESBYTERIAN MEDICAL CENTER, and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. 2022CH0954, was removed from the Superior Court
of North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina on March 11, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of North Carolina
assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00105-FDW-DCK to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract and
declaratory judgment/injunctive relief by improperly charging a
visitation fee to emergency room patients who received care at
Novant Health Presbyterian Medical Center's emergency room facility
located at or near 200 Hawthorne Lane, Charlotte, North Carolina
within the last three years.
Novant Health, Inc., doing business as Novant Health Presbyterian
Medical Center, is a non-profit corporation with its principal
place of business in North Carolina. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
T. Richmond McPherson, III, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
201 North Tryon Street, Ste. 3000
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 343-2038
Facsimile: (704) 444-8783
E-mail: rmcpherson@mcguirewoods.com
NOVO NORDISK: Chaires Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAIRES, et al., v. NOVO
NORDISK INC., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00699-BRM-ESK (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to certify classes:
-- NATIONWIDE CLASSES
The Plaintiffs move for certification of two nationwide
classes for "unconscionable" acts under the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act.
1. Nationwide class against defendant Novo Nordisk Inc.
("Novo"):
"All individual persons in the United States and its
territories who paid any portion of the purchase price
for any prescription of Fiasp, Fiasp Flextouch, Levemir,
Levemir Flextouch, Novolog, Novolog Flexpen, Novolog
Flexpen Mix 70/30, Novolog Mix 70/30, or Tresiba at a
price calculated by reference to a list price, AWP
(Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC (Wholesale
Acquisition Price) for purposes other than resale."
-- For Fiasp, the class period is from December 1, 2017,
through the date on which the class is certified.
-- For Fiasp Flextouch, the class period is from January
1, 2018, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Levemir, the class period is from July 1, 2016,
through the date on which the class is certified. For
Levemir Flextouch, the class period is from April 1,
2016, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Novolog Flexpen, the class period is from October
1, 2014, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Novolog and Novolog Flexpen Mix 70/30, the class
period is from January 1, 2015, through the date on
which the class is certified.
-- For Novolog Mix 70/30, he class period is from April
1, 2015, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Tresiba and Tresiba Flextouch, the class period
is from November 1, 2016, through the date on which
the class is certified.
The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of plaintiffs
Carole Andrew, Michael Carfagno, and Barry Hunsinger as
Class Representatives for this class.
2. Nationwide class against defendant Sanofi-Aventis U.S.
LLC:
"All individual persons in the United States and its
territories who paid any portion of the purchase price
for any prescription of Lantus, Lantus Solostar, Toujeo
Solostar, or Toujeo Maxsolostar at a price calculated by
reference to a list price, AWP (Average Wholesale
Price), and/or WAC (Wholesale Acquisition Price) for
purposes other than resale."
-- For Lantus, the class period is from April 1, 2014,
through the date on which the class is certified.
-- For Lantus Solostar, the class period is from July 1,
2014, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Toujeo Solostar, the class period is from March
1, 2015, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Toujeo Maxsolostar, the class period is from
April 1, 2018, through the date on which the class is
certified.
The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of plaintiff
Carole Andrew as Class Representative for this class.
-- MULTI-STATE CLASSES
The Plaintiffs move for certification of three multi-state
classes for "unfair" acts.
1. Multi-state class against defendant Eli Lilly and
Company ("Lilly"):
"All individual persons in Colorado, Florida, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
or Tennessee who paid any portion of the purchase price
for any prescription of Humalog, Humalog Jr. Kwikpen,
Humalog Kwikpen, Humalog Kwikpen 50/50, Humalog Kwikpen
75/25, Humalog Mix 50/50, Humalog Mix 75/25, or Basaglar
Kwikpen at a price calculated by reference to a list
price, AWP (Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC
(Wholesale Acquisition Price) for purposes other than
resale."
-- For Humalog Kwikpen, the class period is from January
1, 2013, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Humalog, Humalog Jr. Kwikpen, Humalog Kwikpen
50/50, Humalog Kwikpen 75/25, Humalog Mix 50/50, and
Humalog Mix 75/25, the class period is from January 1,
2014, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Basaglar Kwikpen, the class period is from
December 1, 2016, through the date on which the class
is certified.
The Plaintiffs move for appointment of the following
plaintiffs as Class Representatives for this class: Donald
Douthit (Colorado); Barbara Johnson and Tremayne Sirmons
(Florida); Adam Levett (Illinois); Marie Saffran and Scott
Dercks (Indiana); Richard Knauss (Iowa); Robyn Rushing
(Louisiana); Molly Thompson (Maine); Brian Phair
(Maryland); Sheila Cooney (Massachusetts); Jake Knaack
(North Dakota); Clayton McCook (Oklahoma); Jonathan Rollins
(South Carolina); and Tyler Campbell (Tennessee).
2. Multi-state class against defendant Novo:
"All individual persons in Connecticut, Delaware,
Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine,
Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
or Tennessee who paid any portion of the purchase price
for any prescription of Fiasp, Fiasp Flextouch, Levemir,
Levemir Flextouch, Novolog, Novolog Flexpen, Novolog
Flexpen Mix 70/30, Novolog Mix 70/30, or Tresiba at a
price calculated by reference to a list price, AWP
(Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC (Wholesale
Acquisition) for purposes other than resale."
-- For Fiasp, the class period is from December 1, 2017,
through the date on which the class is certified.
-- For Fiasp Flextouch, the class period is from January
1, 2018, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Levemir, the class period is from July 1, 2016,
through the date on which the class is certified. For
Levemir Flextouch, the class period is from April 1,
2016, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Novolog Flexpen, the class period is from October
1, 2014, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Novolog and Novolog Flexpen Mix 70/30, the class
period is from January 1, 2015, through the date on
which the class is certified. For Novolog Mix 70/30,
the class period is from April 1, 2015, through the
date on which the class is certified.
-- For Tresiba and Tresiba Flextouch, the class period
is from November 1, 2016, through the date on which
the class is certified.
The Plaintiffs move for appointment of the following
plaintiffs as Class Representatives for this class:
Samantha Jensen (Connecticut); Ann Marie Jordan (Delaware);
Ann Marie Jordan, Anne Olinger, and Tremayne Sirmons
(Florida); Andre Arnold and Adam Levett (Illinois); Mary
Bobo and Arthur Janz (Indiana); Richard Knauss (Iowa);
Terry Brewster (Louisiana); Molly Thompson (Maine); Donald
Chaires (Massachusetts); Donna Miller (North Carolina);
Melinda Bell, Clayton McCook, and Shannon Meadows
(Oklahoma); Jonathan Rollins (South Carolina); and Tyler
Campbell (Tennessee).
3. Multi-state class against defendant Sanofi:
"All individual persons in Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, North Carolina, or Oklahoma who paid any
portion of the purchase price for any prescription of
Lantus, Lantus Solostar, Toujeo Solostar, or Toujeo
Maxsolostar at a price calculated by reference to a list
price, AWP (Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC
(Wholesale Acquisition Price) for purposes other than
resale."
-- For Lantus, the class period is from April 1, 2014,
through the date on which the class is certified.
-- For Lantus Solostar, the class period is from July 1,
2014, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Toujeo Solostar, the class period is from March
1, 2015, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Toujeo Maxsolostar, the class period is from
April 1, 2018, through the date on which the class is
certified.
The Plaintiffs move for appointment of the following
plaintiffs as Class Representatives for this class: Donald
Douthit (Colorado); Samantha Jensen (Connecticut); Ann
Marie Jordan (Delaware); Ritch Hoard and Ann Marie Jordan
(Florida); Andre Arnold and Adam Levett (Illinois); Marie
Saffran, Scott Dercks, and Arthur Janz (Indiana); Richard
Knauss (Iowa); Terry Brewster (Louisiana); Donald Chaires,
Sheila Cooney, and Sara Hasselbach (Massachusetts); Donna
Miller (North Carolina); and Melinda Bell, Clayton McCook,
and Shannon Meadows (Oklahoma).
-- SINGLE-STATE CLASSES FOR VIOLATION OF NEW JERSEY LAW
The Plaintiffs seek certification of three single-state
classes for "unconscionable" acts under the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act.
1. New Jersey class against defendant Lilly:
"All individual persons in New Jersey who paid any
portion of the purchase price for any prescription of
Humalog,Jr. Kwikpen, Humalog Kwikpen, Humalog Kwikpen
50/50, Humalog Kwikpen 75/25, Humalog Mix 50/50, Humalog
Mix 75/25, or Basaglar Kwikpen at a price calculated by
reference to a list price, AWP (Average Wholesale
Price), and/or WAC (Wholesale Acquisition Price) for
purposes other than resale."
-- For Humalog Kwikpen, the class period is from January
1, 2013, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Humalog, Humalog Jr. Kwikpen, Humalog Kwikpen
50/50, Humalog Kwikpen 75/25, Humalog Mix 50/50,
Humalog Mix 75/25, the class period is from January 1,
2014, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Basaglar Kwikpen, the class period is from
December 1, 2016, through the date on which the class
is certified.
The Plaintiffs move for appointment of Carole Andrew and
Barry Hunsinger as Class Representatives for this class.
2. New Jersey class against defendant Novo:
"All individual persons in New Jersey who paid any
portion of the purchase price for any prescription of
Fiasp, Fiasp Flextouch, Levemir, Levemir Flextouch,
Novolog, Novolog Flexpen, Novolog Flexpen Mix 70/30,
Novolog Mix 70/30, or Tresiba at a price calculated by
reference to a list price, AWP (Average Wholesale
Price), and/or WAC (Wholesale Acquisition Price) for
purposes other than resale."
-- For Fiasp, the class period is from December 1, 2017,
through the date on which the class is certified.
-- For Fiasp Flextouch, the class period is from January
1, 2018, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Levemir, the class period is from July 1, 2016,
through the date on which the class is certified. For
Levemir Flextouch, the class period is from April 1,
2016, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Novolog Flexpen, the class period is from October
1, 2014, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Novolog and Novolog Flexpen Mix 70/30, the class
period is from January 1, 2015, through the date on
which the class is certified.
-- For Novolog Mix 70/30, the class period is from April
1, 2015, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Tresiba and Tresiba Flextouch, the class period is
from November 1, 2016, through the date on which the
class is certified.
The Plaintiffs move for appointment of plaintiffs Carole
Andrew, Michael Carfagno, and Barry Hunsinger as Class
Representatives for this class.
3. New Jersey class against defendant Sanofi:
"All individual persons in New Jersey who paid any
portion of the purchase price for any prescription of
Lantus, Lantus Solostar, Toujeo Solostar, or Toujeo
Maxsolostar at a price calculated by reference to a list
price, AWP (Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC
(Wholesale Acquisition Price) for purposes other than
resale.
-- For Lantus, the class period is from April 1, 2014,
through the date on which the class is certified.
-- For Lantus Solostar, the class period is from July 1,
2014, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Toujeo Solostar, the class period is from March
1, 2015, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Toujeo Maxsolostar, the class period is from
April 1, 2018, through the date on which the class is
certified.
The Plaintiffs move for appointment of plaintiff Carole
Andrew as Class Representative for this class.
-- SINGLE-STATE CLASSES FOR VIOLATION OF TEXAS LAW
The Plaintiffs seek certification of three single-state
classes for "unconscionable" acts under the Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. &
Com. Code section 17.41 et seq.
1. Texas class against defendant Lilly:
"All individual persons in Texas who paid any portion of
the purchase price for any prescription of Humalog,
Humalog Jr. Kwikpen, Humalog Kwikpen, Humalog Kwikpen
50/50, Humalog Kwikpen 75/25, Humalog Mix 50/50, Humalog
Mix 75/25, or Basaglar Kwikpen at a price calculated by
reference to a list price, AWP (Average Wholesale
Price), and/or WAC (Wholesale Acquisition Price) for
purposes other than resale.
-- For Humalog Kwikpen, the class period is from January
1, 2013, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Humalog, Humalog Jr. Kwikpen, Humalog Kwikpen
50/50, Humalog Kwikpen 75/25, Humalog Mix 50/50,
Humalog Mix 75/25, the class period is from January
1, 2014, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Basaglar Kwikpen, the class period is from
December 1, 2016, through the date on which the class
is certified.
The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Laura Stark and
Bret Stewart as Class Representatives for this class.
2. Texas class against defendant Novo:
"All individual persons in Texas who paid any portion of
the purchase price for any prescription of Fiasp, Fiasp
Flextouch, Levemir, Levemir Flextouch, Novolog, Novolog
Flexpen, Novolog Flexpen Mix 70/30, Novolog Mix 70/30,
or Tresiba at a price calculated by reference to a list
price, AWP (Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC
(Wholesale Acquisition Price) for purposes other than
resale.
-- For Fiasp, the class period is from December 1, 2017,
through the date on which the class is certified.
-- For Fiasp Flextouch, the class period is from January
1, 2018, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Levemir, the class period is from July 1, 2016,
through the date on which the class is certified.
-- For Levemir Flextouch, the class period is from
April 1, 2016, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Novolog Flexpen, the class period is from October
1, 2014, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Novolog and Novolog Flexpen Mix 70/30, the class
period is from January 1, 2015, through the date on
which the class is certified.
-- For Novolog Mix 70/30, the class period is from April
1, 2015, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Tresiba and Tresiba Flextouch, the class period
is from November 1, 2016, through the date on which
the class is certified.
The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Patricia Dague,
Laura Stark, and Bret Stewart as Class Representatives for
this class.
3. Texas class against defendant Sanofi:
"All individual persons in Texas who paid any portion of
the purchase price for any prescription of Lantus,
Lantus Solostar, Toujeo Solostar, or Toujeo Maxsolostar
at a price calculated by reference to a list price, AWP
(Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC (Wholesale
Acquisition Price) for purposes other than resale. For
Lantus, the class period is from April 1, 2014, through
the date on which the class is certified."
-- For Lantus Solostar, the class period is from July 1,
2014, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Toujeo Solostar, the class period is from March
1, 2015, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Toujeo Maxsolostar, the class period is from
April 1, 2018, through the date on which the class is
certified.
The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Patricia Dague
and Bret Stewart as Class Representatives for this class.
-- SINGLE-STATE CLASSES FOR VIOLATION OF KANSAS LAW
The Plaintiffs seek certification of three single-state
classes for "unconscionable" acts under the Kansas Consumer
Protection Act, Kan. Stat. section 50-623 et seq.
1. Kansas class against defendant Novo:
"All individual persons in Kansas who paid any portion
of the purchase price for any prescription of Fiasp,
Fiasp Flextouch, Levemir, Levemir Flextouch, Novolog,
Novolog Flexpen, Novolog Flexpen Mix 70/30, Novolog Mix
70/30, or Tresiba at a price calculated by reference to
a list price, AWP (Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC
(Wholesale Acquisition Price) for purposes other than
resale. For Fiasp, the class period is from December 1,
2017, through the date on which the class is certified.
-- For Fiasp Flextouch, the class period is from January
1, 2018, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Levemir, the class period is from July 1, 2016,
through the date on which the class is certified.
-- For Levemir Flextouch, the class period is from April
1, 2016, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Novolog Flexpen, the class period is from October
1, 2014, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Novolog and Novolog Flexpen Mix 70/30, the class
period is from January 1, 2015, through the date on
which the class is certified.
-- For Novolog Mix 70/30, the class period is from April
1, 2015, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Tresiba and Tresiba Flextouch, the class period
is from November 1, 2016, through the date on which
the class is certified.
The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Kandyce Gunther
and Susan Marsh as Class Representatives for this class.
2. Kansas class against defendant Sanofi:
"All individual persons in Kansas who paid any portion
of the purchase price for any prescription of Lantus,
Lantus Solostar, Toujeo Solostar, or Toujeo Maxsolostar
at a price calculated by reference to a list price, AWP
(Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC (Wholesale
Acquisition Price) for purposes other than resale.
-- For Lantus, the class period is from April 1, 2014,
through the date on which the class is certified. For
Lantus Solostar, the class period is from July 1,
2014, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Toujeo Solostar, the class period is from March
1, 2015, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Toujeo Maxsolostar, the class period is from
April 1, 2018, through the date on which the class is
certified.
The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Kandyce Gunther
as Class Representative for this class.
-- SINGLE-STATE CLASSES FOR VIOLATION OF UTAH LAW
The Plaintiffs seek certification of three single-state
classes for "unconscionable" acts under the Consumer Sale
Practices Act, Utah Code section 13-11-1 et seq.
1. Utah class against defendant Novo:
"All individual persons in Utah who paid any portion of
the purchase price for any prescription of Fiasp, Fiasp
Flextouch, Levemir, Levemir Flextouch, Novolog, Novolog
Flexpen, Novolog Flexpen Mix 70/30, Novolog Mix 70/30,
or Tresiba at a price calculated by reference to a list
price, AWP (Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC
(Wholesale Acquisition Price) for purposes other than
resale.
-- For Fiasp, the class period is from December 1, 2017,
through the date on which the class is certified.
-- For Fiasp Flextouch, the class period is from January
1, 2018, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Levemir, the class period is from July 1, 2016,
through the date on which the class is certified.
-- For Levemir Flextouch, the class period is from April
1, 2016, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Novolog Flexpen, the class period is from October
1, 2014, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Novolog and Novolog Flexpen Mix 70/30, the class
period is from January 1, 2015, through the date on
which the class is certified.
-- For Novolog Mix 70/30, the class period is from April
1, 2015, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Tresiba and Tresiba Flextouch, the class period
is from November 1, 2016, through the date on which
the class is certified.
The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Dianna Gilmore
as Class Representative for this class.
2. Utah class against defendant Sanofi:
"All individual persons in Utah who paid any portion of
the purchase price for any prescription of Lantus,
Lantus Solostar, Toujeo Solostar, or Toujeo Maxsolostar
at a price calculated by reference to a list price, AWP
(Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC (Wholesale
Acquisition Price) for purposes other than resale.
-- For Lantus, the class period is from April 1, 2014,
through the date on which the class is certified.
-- For Lantus Solostar, the class period is from July 1,
2014, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Toujeo Solostar, the class period is from March
1, 2015, through the date on which the class is
certified.
-- For Toujeo Maxsolostar, the class period is from
April 1, 2018, through the date on which the class is
certified.
The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Dianna Gilmore
as Class Representative for this class.
-- EXCLUSIONS FROM ALL CLASSES
Excluded from all proposed classes are: (1) purchases where
a manufacturer coupon was applied; and (2) purchases (or
receipt of) insulin through a Medicaid program.
Also excluded from all classes are: (1) each defendant and
any entity in which it has a controlling interest, and
their legal representatives, officers, directors,
assignees, and successors; and (2) any co-conspirators and
their officers, directors, management, employees,
subsidiaries, and affiliates.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated March 1,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3teOTbz
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI ,
OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Hannah W. Brennan, Esq.
Mark T. Vazquez, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 2nd Ave., Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Hearing for Rule 23 Class Cert. Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANE VILLARINO, et al.,
v. PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE, INC., a Texas profit corporation;
PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida profit
corporation; FLORIDA STAFFING SERVICE, INC., a Florida profit
corporation; and, TAMPA SERVICE COMPANY, INC., a Florida profit
corporation each d/b/a PACESETTER; PACESETTER PERSONNEL; PACESETTER
PERSONNEL SERVICE; PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICES; PACESETTER
PERSONNEL SERVICES, LLC; PPS; and/or FW SERVICES, Case No.
0:20-cv-60192-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order setting a hearing to provide for oral argument on
Plaintiffs' pending Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification.
The Plaintiffs are Shane Villarino, Laura J. Johnson, Jeffery
Mondy, and Jerome Gunn.
Pacesetter provides employment services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 1, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/367zvV7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dion J. Cassata, Esq.
E-mail: dion@cassatalaw.com
CASSATA LAW, PLLC
Boca Crown Centre
7999 North Federal Highway, Suite 202
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Telephone: (954) 364-7803
- and -
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, 4 th Floor
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
PJ OPS: Hearing on Edwards' Bid for Certify Class Set for April 21
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CORY EDWARDS, et al., On behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PJ OPS IDAHO, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00283-DCN (D. Idaho), Judge David C.
Nye of the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho granted
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate Scheduling Order.
The Court sets a hearing on class certification for April 21,
2022.
I. Background
It is a putative hybrid Rule 23 class, collective action case.
Relevant to today's decision, the Court notes three matters that
have played, and will continue to play, a large role in the case.
These three topics have been the impetus for numerous discovery
disputes and have significantly affected the trajectory of the case
over the years.
First is the class certification. The Court conditionally certified
a collection action years ago. Briefing for class action
certification is underway and will conclude on March 15, 2022.
Second, one of the most important questions in the case is how the
Court will interpret and apply the Fair Labor Standards Act's
("FLSA") minimum wage requirements to the reimbursement of vehicle
expenses. This is a pure legal question, and while the Court and
counsel have discussed over the years the best time to take up this
critical matter, nothing has materialized. Currently, the
Plaintiffs plan to move for partial summary judgment on this issue
once the question of class certification has been resolved.
Third and relatedly, the Defendants have taken the position, at
various times, that the "one-way intervention rule" prohibits
briefing on the legal question prior to a class certification. The
parties, however, have never briefed—and the Court has never
ruled -- on whether the one-way intervention doctrine applies in
the case.
Because of various delays, and an extended stay to pursue
mediation, the case did not actually have a scheduling order in
place for the first four years. Last June, however, the Court sent
out its standard litigation order. As is sometimes the case, the
parties in this suit were unable to agree to deadline, the Court
held a telephonic call to go over the proposals, and ultimately a
scheduling order was entered. During the telephonic scheduling
conference concerning the parties' disagreements, both sides
brought up situations they felt were left unresolved in the plan.
The Court and counsel, however, decided that a schedule (even with
some things left open) was better than no schedule at all. In
subsequent email communications, the Court and Counsel discussed
some of these outstanding concerns, but again -- no formal
resolution was reached. The matters were never briefed, and the
Court never ruled on any of them.
Recently, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to vacate the
remaining deadlines in this case for the time being. The motion
comprises just four paragraphs. They note that their deadline for
initial expert disclosures is this week -- March 4, 2022. The
Plaintiffs explain that because the Court's decision on the legal
question regarding FLSA reimbursement (which hasn't even been
briefed yet) will bear on the need for experts in the first
instance, there is little reason to engage experts until that
determination has been made. They ask the Court to vacate the
current deadlines, set a scheduling conference to set new
deadlines, and set a deadline for their upcoming motion for summary
judgment (following any decision on class certification).
Because the Court's standard briefing schedule would have
overlapped the deadlines the Plaintiffs sought to move, the Court
shortened the time for briefing the matter. It noted as part of its
order that, in the future, the parties needed to meet and confer on
this type of motion and also indicate in their moving papers
whether the other side is opposing the request. The Defendants
dutifully filed an opposition to the motion and the Plaintiffs
replied. The matter is now ripe for the Court's consideration.
II. Discussion
The Defendants bring three primary arguments in opposition to the
Plaintiffs' request: 1) that the Plaintiffs agreed to the prior
scheduling order, 2) that the Plaintiffs were not diligent in
bringing their current request, and 3) that they will suffer
prejudice if the deadlines are moved.
Judge Nye agrees with the Plaintiffs that the most efficient and
economical course of action is to take matters up one at a time.
First, the Court will deal with class certification. The Court will
then take up the legal question of FLSA reimbursement. Then, if
necessary, the parties will engage in expert discovery. Even though
the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) could engage in expert discovery
while these other issues are ongoing, it will benefit the parties,
and the Court, to approach these issues in an organized manner, one
by one. That said, Judge Nye agrees with the Defendants that the
case should move forward as quickly as reasonably possible. Thus,
he will set deadlines as soon as its schedule allows.
III. Order
Judge Nye granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate Scheduling
Order. He vacated the outstanding deadlines in the case. The Court
will set a hearing on class certification for April 21, 2022. A
separate notice of hearing will issue.
The parties should begin drafting their motions for partial summary
judgment on the legal question of reimbursement. Motions on this
topic (whether cross motions by both parties or simply the
Plaintiffs' motion) will be due 30 days after the Court's decision
on class certification. The traditional deadlines for briefing will
follow.
The Court will not set a scheduling conference at this time. Once
its decisions on class certification and the legal reimbursement
question have been issued, it will set a conference to determine
the remaining deadlines in the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2022 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3k86p5hz from
Leagle.com.
RICE DRILLING: Bid for Leave to File Docs Under Seal OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J&R PASSMORE, LLC, et al.,
v. RICE DRILLING D, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01587-ALM-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an order:
-- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file documents
under seal; and
-- directing the Plaintiffs to file the declassified,
redacted, and sealed exhibits consistent with this Opinion
and Order within seven days.
The Court notes that the parties have agreed to declassify a few
documents previously at-issue in the Motion for Leave to File
Documents Under Seal if redactions of "personal employee
information such as telephone numbers and email addresses" are
made. Because redactions are themselves a form of sealing, the
Court briefly considers the proposed redactions. First, the parties
have a compelling interest in protecting the personal contact
information of their employees, particularly to the extent that
those employees are not themselves parties to this litigation.
Second, the right to privacy for these third parties outweighs any
interest the public may have in accessing the information. And
finally, because the parties seek to redact only this contact
information, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to serve
their compelling interest. In sum, the redactions agreed to by the
parties are approved by the Court.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34Hh5u8 at no extra charge.[CC]
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Crews Sues Over False IPO-Related Fin'l. Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES LARRY CREWS, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., ROBERT J.
SCARINGE, CLAIRE MCDONOUGH, JEFFREY R. BAKER, KAREN BOONE, SANFORD
SCHWARTZ, ROSE MARCARIO, PETER KRAWIEC, JAY FLATLEY, PAMELA
THOMAS-GRAHAM, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO., LLC,
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., DEUTSCHE BANK
SECURITIES INC., ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC., MIZUHO
SECURITIES USA LLC, WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, NOMURA SECURITIES
INTERNATIONAL, INC., PIPER SANDLER & CO., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC,
ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INC., WEDBUSH SECURITIES INC., ACADEMY
SECURITIES, INC., BLAYLOCK VAN, LLC, CABRERA CAPITAL MARKETS LLC,
C.L. KING & ASSOCIATES, INC., LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, SAMUEL A.
RAMIREZ & CO., INC., SIEBERT WILLIAMS SHANK & CO., LLC, and TIGRESS
FINANCIAL PARTNERS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01524 (C.D.
Cal., March 7, 2022) is brought against all Defendants for
violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 arising from
untrue statements of material fact as well as the omission of other
facts necessary in order to make statements contained in the
Defendants' Registration Statement in connection with their initial
public offering not materially false or misleading.
According to the complaint, the issuance of Rivian common stock in
connection with the IPO was registered under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, pursuant to Rivian's registration statement on
Form S-1 (File No. 333-259992) declared effective on November 9,
2021. In 2018, Rivian unveiled its first consumer EVs: the R1T
electric pickup truck and the R1S electric SUV. According to the
Registration Statement, the "R1T and R1S introduce our brand to the
world and will serve as our flagship vehicles as we continue to
expand our offerings."
The representations were allegedly materially inaccurate,
misleading, and/or incomplete because they failed to disclose,
among other things, that the R1T and R1S were underpriced to such a
degree that Rivian would have to raise prices shortly after the IPO
and that these price increases would tarnish Rivian's reputation as
a trustworthy and transparent company and would put a significant
number of the existing backlog of 55,400 preorders along with
future preorders in jeopardy of cancellation.
Accordingly, the price of the Company's shares was artificially and
materially inflated at the time of the offering. On the date of
filing this complaint, Rivian shares closed at $42.43 per share,
significantly below their $78.00 IPO price, added the suit.
The Plaintiff purchased 35 shares of the Company's common stock on
November 10, 2021, at a price of $112.83 per share.
Rivian Automotive Inc. is an electric vehicle company based in
Irvine, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
E-mail: jake@blockleviton.com
ROTHMANS BENSON & HEDGES: McDermid Class Suit Pending in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a
class action, "McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et
al.," is pending in Canada against the company's subsidiary,
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges (RBH) alleging heart disease resulting
from the use of tobacco products.
In said class action pending in the Supreme Court, British
Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
Inc.(RBH), and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other
members of the industry were named as defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were
alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease
allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family
members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants
from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.
Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia holding company.
ROTHMANS BENSON & HEDGES: Semple Class Suit Pending in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a
class action is pending in Canada against the company's subsidiary,
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges (RBH) captioned "Semple v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.," alleging that the
company's tobacco products lead to chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease. Plaintiff attributes his addiction to tobacco products
from the use of tobacco products. The Supreme Court (trial court),
Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, named Rothmans, Benson &
Hedges Inc.(RBH), and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria) and other
members of the industry as defendants.
Semple is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class composed of all smokers, their estates, dependents
and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and
reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by
tobacco products.
Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia holding company.
SAGE MIDDLEBURG: Branham Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Branham and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. Sage Middleburg Hospitality, LLC, a/k/a Hampton Inn &
Suites Middleburg, and Gaurangkumar Patel, individually Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00250 (M.D. Fla., March 7, 2022) is an action to
recover from Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, retaliatory
damages, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees
under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Branham was employed by the Defendants from July 21,
2021, to January 24, 2022, or 27 weeks, as a non-exempted,
full-time, hourly front desk employee.
Sage Middleburg Hospitality, LLC, a/k/a Hampton Inn & Suites
Middleburg, is a Florida business that provides hospitality
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Dahlquist Sues Over Deceptive Smart Watch Ad
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nic Dahlquist, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No.
5:22-cv-00402 (C.D. Cal., March 4, 2022) is brought against the
Defendant for breach of express warranties, breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, and for violations
of the California Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising
Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. manufactures, distributes,
markets, labels, and sells the Galaxy Watch Active smart watch.
According to the complaint, the Defendant takes advantage of
reasonable consumers' inability to distinguish between the term
"waterproof" with the term "water-resistant" through marketing
practices that superimpose the term "water-resistant" against a
backdrop of visuals and statements that imply its Galaxy Watch
Active smart watch is waterproof. The Defendant further attempts to
substantiate its "water-resistance" claims, and disclaim any
perceived "waterproof" claim, by referencing an International
Electrotechnical Commission Standard that was not intended to be
applied to the product, and which does not provide information
relevant to the real-world use of the product by consumers,
including the Plaintiff.
As an immediate, direct, and proximate result of Defendant's false,
misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions, Defendant
allegedly injured Plaintiff and Class Members.
The Plaintiff purchased the Samsung Galaxy Watch Active2 from
Amazon.com for no less than $172. At the time of his purchase,
Plaintiff viewed and relied upon Defendant's representations that
the product was water resistant as described herein.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig Borison, Esq.
BORISON LAW
468 North Camden Drive Ste 200-90416
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (818) 256-5449
E-mail: craig@borisonlaw.com
- and -
Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
THE KEETON FIRM LLC
100 S Commons Ste 102
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (888) 412-5291
E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: De Bernardi's $503K Class Deal Wins Final Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, TAIRA DE BERNARDI, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant. ABDULLAH WAZWAZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant, Case
Nos. 18-cv-04597-HSG, 18-cv-05580-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motions for final
approval of a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action
settlement.
I. Background
As current and former employees of Defendant City and County of San
Francisco, the Plaintiffs in both cases allege that the Defendant
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The FLSA requires
employers to compensate employees for cashed out or used
compensatory time off ("CTO") at their "regular rate" of pay. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violated the FLSA by
improperly calculating the regular rate of pay when cashing out CTO
or paying employees who used accrued CTO.
In July 2018, Plaintiffs Taira De Bernardi and Stephen Val Kirwan
("De Bernardi Lead Plaintiffs") filed a complaint against the
Defendant for failure to pay the regular rate of pay for cash-out
or use of CTO. In September 2018, Plaintiffs Abdullah Wazwaz, Jason
Moore, Kenneth Yeung, and Brian Kam filed a complaint against the
Defendant alleging similar CTO claims. As the cases progressed, the
De Bernardi action focused on current and former employees of the
San Francisco Police Department as well as other City departments,
while the Wazwaz action focused on current and former members of
the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association and Sheriff's
Managers and Supervisors Association.
After the cases were filed, the Defendant reportedly admitted to
violating the FLSA and brought its pay practices into compliance.
Additionally, the Defendant pledged to "recalculate the difference
between the 'regular rate' of pay and the base rate for any CTO
cashed out and/or used between July 30, 2015 and Nov.r 30, 2018
(for the De Bernardi Plaintiffs) and Sept. 12, 2015 and Nov. 30,
2018 (for the Wazwaz Plaintiffs), and pay the affected Plaintiffs
accordingly." All told, the Defendant paid $1.4 million in
"corrective payments to all affected City employees."
In early 2019, the Court conditionally certified the two FLSA
collective actions and ordered the parties to provide notice to
affected employees. In November 2019, the Honorable Jacqueline
Corley held two settlement conferences, and the parties were able
to agree on the principal terms of a settlement agreement. The
parties filed their motions for preliminary approval in March 2021,
and the Court granted them in June 2021.
The Named Plaintiffs are Taira De Bernardi, Stephen Val Kirwan, and
Abdullah Wazwaz.
The Recovery Plaintiffs are: Those current or former City employees
who consented to join either of the Actions and who received Retro
Payments, which fully compensated them for unpaid back wages. The
Retro Payments are payments by the City in 2018 to all eligible
City employees, including the Named Plaintiffs and Recovery
Plaintiffs, to correct underpayment of FLSA overtime and
compensatory time.
The No Recovery Plaintiffs are: Those current or former City
employees who consented to join either of the Actions but who,
based on a review of payroll records, are not owed any back wages
because they did not use any compensatory time or have compensatory
time cashed out during the applicable recovery period, or they did
not earn premiums that should have been included in the regular
rate of pay for their compensatory time during the applicable
recovery period.
The Defendant has agreed to pay a settlement amount of $503,506.33,
plus additional fees for settlement administration expenses. The
individual amount paid to the Recovery Plaintiffs with a valid FLSA
claim is almost equal to the backpay amounts they already received.
The amount owed to each Recovery Plaintiff was "calculated using a
three-year look-back period from the date each Plaintiff opted in"
to the Collective Action. The settlement provides no recovery to
"No Recovery Plaintiffs" who "consented to join either of the
actions but who, based on a review of payroll records, are not owed
any back wages because they did not use any compensatory time or
have compensatory time cashed out during the applicable period, or
they did not earn premiums that should have been included in the
regular rate of pay for their compensatory time during the
applicable recovery period."
All told, the Plaintiffs represent that $162,723.43 will be paid
out to the Recovery Plaintiffs. The amounts distributed to the
Recovery Plaintiffs will not be considered or treated as back
wages, and no taxes, deductions, or withholdings will be deducted.
In the event that it is determined the payments should be taxed,
the Named Plaintiffs and the Recovery Plaintiffs will be
individually liable for such taxes.
As a part of the preliminary approval process, the Court approved
notice forms regarding the proposed settlement, and again ordered
notice to be sent to all Collective Action members.
The Settlement Agreement contemplates an incentive award of $1,250
each for the two De Bernardi Lead Plaintiffs. It also contemplates
paying attorneys' fees and costs of $150,000 for De Bernardi
counsel and $65,000 for Wazwaz counsel.
II. Discussion
A. Bona Fide Dispute
The Court previously concluded that this action involves a bona
fide dispute under the FLSA. Because no relevant facts have
changed, the Order incorporates by reference the prior analysis in
the Preliminary Approval Order.
B. Fair and Reasonable Settlement Agreement
Judge Gilliam finds that (i) the parties have an adequate
understanding of the merits and sufficient information to make
informed decisions; (ii) the Plaintiffs face main risks if they
proceed with litigation giiven the uncertainty regarding the
recoverability of liquidated damages and the proper statute of
limitations; (iii) the release is limited in time and scope to the
kind of FLSA violations alleged in these two actions; (iv) the
Plaintiffs' counsel have many years of experience litigating FLSA
claims; and (v) the the settlement was reached through arm's-length
negotiations facilitated by an impartial magistrate judge.
C. Attorneys' Fees and Costs
Having reviewed the Plaintiffs' counsel's filings, Judge Gilliam
finds that the hours and rates are reasonable and generally in line
with prevailing rates in the District for personnel of comparable
experience, skill, and reputation. The counsel in both cases are
requesting total awards well below the lodestar, and Judge Gilliam
finds the requests are reasonable given the work performed and the
result achieved.
D. Incentive Award to De Bernardi Lead Plaintiffs
The Settlement Agreement also provides an incentive award for the
two De Bernardi Lead Plaintiffs of $1,250 each. The Plaintiffs'
counsel represent that the De Bernardi Lead Plaintiffs "provided
substantial assistance justifying the incentive awards, including
providing CTO and pay documentation to counsel, engaging in
strategy discussions, acting as information conduits between the
attorneys and other class members, appearing for the full-day
settlement conference, and being prepared at all times to testify
at deposition and at trial, had either of those become necessary."
In light of the time, reputational risk, and effort undertaken by
the De Bernardi Lead Plaintiffs, as well as the total recovery
achieved for Recovery Plaintiffs, Judge Gilliam finds that the
modest incentive awards requested are reasonable.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gilliam granted the Plaintiffs'
Joint Motions for Final Approval of Collective Action Settlement.
He approved the settlement amount of $503,506.33, including
settlement administrator costs in the amount of $94,000 for fees
incurred to Oct. 31, 2021, attorneys' fees in the amount of
$150,000 for De Bernardi counsel and $65,000 for Wazwaz counsel,
and incentive fees for the De Bernardi Lead Plaintiffs in the
amount of $1,250 each, for a total of $2,500.
Judge Gilliam ordered the Defendant to pay BrownGreer, within 15
days of BrownGreer's submission to Defendant of its final invoice,
an additional sum for fees to be incurred in administering and
disbursing settlement proceeds.
He (i) dismissed without prejudice all No Recovery Plaintiffs and
any Recovery Plaintiffs who have not signed releases; and (ii)
dismissed with prejudice all the Recovery Plaintiffs who signed
releases and have settlement payments made to them.
The parties and settlement administrator are directed to implement
the Final Order and the Settlement Agreement in accordance with the
terms of the Settlement Agreement. The parties are further directed
to file a short stipulated final judgment of two pages or less
within 10 days from the date of the Order. The judgment need not,
and should not, repeat the analysis in the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yeynzrcn from Leagle.com.
SETTON PISTACHIO: Second Amended Bid for Class Status Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LILIA ALI, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. SETTON PISTACHIO OF
TERRA BELLA, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 THROUGH
100, inclusive, Case No. 1:19-cv-00959-JLT-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting second amended
notice of motion for class certification.
On March 1, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Notice of Motion
for Class Certification, which included class certification dates.
However, those dates were not the ones set by Magistrate Judge
Barbara A. McAuliffe at the June 30, 2021 preliminary scheduling
conference and in the Preliminary Scheduling Order.
The Class Certification Filing Deadlines Set by Magistrate Judge
Barbara A. McAuliffe are as follows:
1. Non-Expert Certification Discovery January 24, 2022
Cutoff:
2. The Plaintiff's Class Certification Feb. 25, 2022
Motion Filing Deadline:
3. The Defendant's Class Certification April 29, 2022
Opposition:
4. The Plaintiff's Class Certification June 24, 2022
Reply:
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 1,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J8tV3u
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
Gregg Lander, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
1635 Pontius Avenue, Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90025-3361
Telephone: (323) 549-9100
Facsimile: (323) 549-0101
E-mail: Barnes@kbarnes.com
- and -
Michael Nourmand, Esq.
James A. De Sario, Esq.
THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
8822 West Olympic Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 553-3600
Facsimile: (310) 553-3603
E-mail: MNourmand@Nourmandlawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Anthony P. Raimondo, Esq.
Steven R. Wainess, Esq.
RAIMONDO & ASSOCIATES
Fresno, CA 93729
Fed-ex: 7110 N. Marks Ave., Suite 104
Fresno, CA 93711
Telephone: (559) 432-3000
Facsimile: (559) 432-2242
E-mail: APR@raimondoassociates.com
SIMPLY ORANGE: S.D. New York Tosses Turnipseed Suit With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SANDI TURNIPSEED, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIMPLY ORANGE JUICE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 20 Civ. 8677 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Nelson S. Roman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
I. Background
The putative class action alleges that Defendant Simply Orange
Juice misrepresented to consumers the extent to which its
vanilla-flavored "Simply Almond" almond milk ("the Product") is
flavored only or predominantly from vanilla beans. Plaintiff
Turnipseed, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, brings this action against Defendant asserting claims for
violations of New York's General Business Law Sections 349 and 350,
negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, violation of the Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act, fraud, and unjust enrichment.
The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells almond milk labeled
as being flavored with extracts from vanilla beans. The Plaintiff
alleges the Product's label is misleading because the Product is
not mainly flavored from vanilla, contains artificial flavors, and
does not taste like "authentic" vanilla. She avers that the
Defendant misleads consumers because the amount of extracts from
vanilla is negligible, in an amount it cannot contribute to the
Product's vanilla taste, and because the Product lacks an authentic
vanilla taste due to the absence of the critical odor-active
compounds in vanilla.
The Plaintiff avers that reasonable consumers, who are willing to
pay more for foods with no artificial flavors because they are
perceived as more natural, must and do rely on the Defendant's
representations to honestly describe the components and features of
the Product. Instead, the Defendant misrepresented the Product
through affirmative statements, half-truths, and omissions, and
sold more of the Product at higher prices that it would have in the
absence of this alleged misconduct, resulting in additional profits
at the expense of consumers. Particularly, the Plaintiff claims
that as a result of the false and misleading representations,
Defendant sold the Product at a premium price, approximately no
less than $3.99 per 46 oz, excluding tax, compared to other similar
products represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it
would be sold absent the misleading representations and omissions.
The Plaintiff alleges that she purchased the Product on at least
one occasion "during late September and/or early October 2020," at
a Shoprite store within this District, located at 384 Windsor Hwy,
New Windsor, NY 12553-7988. She claims to be among a class of
consumers who bought the Product expecting it would have more of
the named ingredient, vanilla, than it did, and not contain
artificial flavoring. She further claims that she would not have
paid as much for the Product absent the Defendant's false and
misleading statements and omissions.
On Oct. 19, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the original operative class
action complaint. On March 12, 2021, the Defendant filed a letter
seeking leave to file a motion to dismiss, which also stated the
grounds on which Defendant would move for dismissal. Five days
later, the Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file an
amended complaint that would address the deficiencies set forth in
the Defendant's letter and obliviate the need for a motion to
dismiss, which the Court subsequently granted.
Nearly two months later, on May 3, 2021, the Plaintiff filed her
Amended Complaint on behalf of all purchasers of the Product who
reside in New York, asserting claims for (1) violation of New York
General Business Law Sections 349 and 350; (2) breach of express
warranty; (3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (4)
violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act; (5) negligent
misrepresentation; (6) fraud; and (7) unjust enrichment. As relief,
the Plaintiff seeks both monetary damages and injunctive relief
that would require Defendant to correct the Product's allegedly
misleading label.
On May 17, 2021, the Defendant again sought leave to file a motion
to dismiss, which the Court subsequently granted and issued a
briefing schedule. It also filed its Answer on June 28, 2021. On
July 19, 2021, the parties filed their respective briefing on the
instant motion: The Defendant its notice of motion, memorandum in
support, and the Plaintiff her response in opposition.
II. Discussion
The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendant for (1)
violations of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business
Law ("GBL"), (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) breach of express
warranty, (4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (5)
violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, (6) fraud, and (7)
unjust enrichment. It seeks to dismiss all claims based on several
grounds, including: (1) failure to plausible allege consumer
deception; and (2) lack of standing to seek injunctive relief.
A. New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350
1. The Product's "Vanilla" label is not misleading
The Plaintiff first claims that the word "vanilla," viewed together
with the picture of a vanilla bean and vanilla flower, on the
Product's front label is misleading because it implies that the
Product's flavor is derived predominantly from extracts of vanilla
beans, when in fact, it contains a negligible amount of the same
and lacks an "authentic" vanilla taste.
Judge Nelson concludes that the Product's "vanilla" label would not
lead a reasonable consumer to understand its flavor to be derived
mostly or exclusively from the vanilla bean. He says, the
"Defendant's Product does not use the words 'vanilla bean' or
'vanilla extract,' nor does it use language such as 'made with
vanilla; or anything similar." Instead, "the Product makes one
representation -- that it is vanilla flavored -- and the Plaintiff
does not allege that the Product did not deliver on that
representation."
Hence, when assessing the Product's packaging as a whole, "a
reasonable consumer would conclude that the almond milk only has a
vanilla flavor. There is no claim anywhere on the packaging that
vanilla is the predominant source of the vanilla flavor." Simply
put, a reasonable consumer would associate the word "vanilla" in
the Product's front label with the almond milk's flavor and not as
a particular ingredient, much less the predominant one.
2. Plaintiff fails to sufficiently plead that the ingredient list
fails to disclose "artificial flavors"
The Plaintiff next claims that the Product's packaging is
misleading because while its ingredient list contains "natural
flavors," the Product contains artificial flavors such as vanillin
propylene glycol acetal and piperonal. She avers that "the Product
contains a negligible amount of extracts from vanilla beans, if
any, and its 'vanilla' taste is from flavorings that comprise the
'Natural Flavors' ingredient," which she inferentially alleges
include artificially derived vanillin propylene glycol acetal and
piperonal.
Judge Nelson concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to
sufficiently allege that the Defendant misrepresented its Product's
label by failing to disclose that the Product contains artificial
flavors. To begin, the Plaintiff claims that the Product was
allegedly subjected to a laboratory test, but she fails to provide
any details whatsoever about what this laboratory test entailed.
She does not, for instance, describe the testing methodology
followed, the specific date, time, or place of the testing, who
conducted the testing, the qualifications of the testers, etc.
Further, the Plaintiff argues that she has alleged "several factual
and inferential claims that sufficiently establish" that the
vanilla flavorings in this Product are from artificial sources. She
contends that "she cannot be expected to know the exact components
of Defendant's Product, whose ingredient profile is a carefully
proprietary secret." To be sure, Judge Nelson must accept the
Amended Complaint's allegations as true and construe them
allegations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff; however,
he is not required to accept Plaintiff's conclusory statements
without more.
Notably, the Plaintiff fails to substantiate how exactly the
alleged findings from the purported lab test helped her arrive at
the conclusion that the Product is made of artificial flavors, much
less, that the vanillin and piperonal in the Product were plausibly
derived from artificial sources. It is not as if these findings
concern matters of common knowledge for which such conclusion would
evidently follow from Plaintiff's alleged findings. In other words,
from the Plaintiff's conclusory allegations alone, Judge Nelson
cannot draw a reasonable inference that the Product's vanilla
flavoring derives from artificial sources. Accordingly, he
concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege that
the Defendant misrepresented that its Product contains no
artificial flavors.
3. No private enforcement of the Food and Drug Administration
regulations
Throughout her Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff also refers to
certain regulations of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in
alleging that Defendant misrepresented the origins of the Product's
vanilla flavoring in its packaging. But to the extent that the
Plaintiff is bringing a separate cause of action premised on an
alleged violation of an FDA regulation, Judge Nelson holds that the
case law is clear that any such claim must be dismissed because
there is no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations. Nor
does New York's GBL fill the gap by creating a state law claim
solely as a result of a violation of federal labeling regulations.
Because he concludes that the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged
that the Product's label is misleading to a reasonable consumer,
Judge Nelson will dismiss the Plaintiff's claims under GBL Sections
349 and 350.
B. Remaining Claims
The Plaintiff also asserts claims for negligent misrepresentation,
breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act,
fraud, and unjust enrichment. These claims, which largely hinge on
the core theory of consumer deception, all fail as a matter of law,
Judge Nelson holds.
First, he finds that the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that
the Product's label imparts incorrect information to consumers.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged the existence
of a special or a privity-like relationship in order to bring a
negligent misrepresentation claim.
Second, Judge Nelson finds that the Product does not represent that
its flavor is derived predominantly from extracts of vanilla beans
and a reasonable consumer would not interpret the representation of
"Vanilla" to make such claim. Such generalized statements by the
Defendant do not support an express warranty claim if they are such
that a reasonable consumer would not interpret the statement as a
factual claim upon which he or she could rely.
Third, the Plaintiff's claim for breach of implied warranty of
merchantability fails for the same reasons as the express warranty
claim.
Fourth, as her state law claims for express and implied warranty
fail, Judge Nelson holds that the Plaintiff's MMWA claim similarly
fails for the same reasons.
Fifth, Judge Nelson concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to
allege a material misrepresentation of fact or omission because a
reasonable consumer would not conclude that the Product's label
communicates that the Product's vanilla flavor derives
predominantly from extracts of vanilla beans. Furthermore, the
Plaintiff fails to plead facts that give rise to an interest of
fraudulent intent. Therefore, the Plaintiff's fraud claim fails.
Finally, Judge Nelson holds that the Plaintiff has failed to allege
that any gains to the Defendant would be unjust because she has not
plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer would be misled or
deceived by the Product's label. Thus, the Plaintiff's unjust
enrichment claim fails.
C. Leave to Amend
Judge Nelson explains that the Plaintiff has already amended once,
after having the benefit of a pre-motion letter from the Defendant
stating the grounds on which it would move to dismiss. Further,
while the Plaintiff requested leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint within the last sentence of her response in opposition,
she has not otherwise suggested that she is in possession of facts
that would cure the deficiencies that Defendants highlighted in the
instant motion and that the Court highlighted in the Opinion.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Nelson granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss and dismissed the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the
motion at ECF No. 17 and the action, to enter judgment accordingly,
and to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/49r4rnx8 from Leagle.com.
SKECHERS USA: Class Settlement in Wilk Suit Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ealeen Wilk, et al., Plaintiff v. Skechers U.S.A.
Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. EDCV 18-1921 JGB (SPx) (S.D.
Cal.), Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Eastern Division, entered a
judgment granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Costs.
Judge Bernal granted final approval to the parties' Settlement
Agreement. He finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair,
adequate, and reasonable, appears to be the product of arm's-length
and informed negotiations, and treats all members of the class
fairly. The parties will perform their obligations pursuant to the
terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Order.
The following classes are certified under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(c) for settlement purposes:
a. The Nationwide Settlement Class, i.e., all current and
former hourly, non-exempt non-California employees of Skechers who
received commissions, non-discretionary bonuses and/or other items
of compensation and worked overtime during Sept. 10, 2014 through
May 1, 2020.
b. The California Settlement Class, i.e., all current and
former hourly, non-exempt employees of Skechers who received
commissions, non-discretionary bonuses and/or other items of
compensation and worked overtime during Sept. 10, 2014 through May
1, 2020.
Each of Plaintiff Eileen Wilk and Plaintiff Dorian Gomez will be
paid a service award of $6,000 in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and the Order.
The Class counsel will be paid $260,000 in attorneys' fees and
costs in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
The Settlement Administrator, Atticus Administration, LLC, will be
paid for its litigation costs of $32,000 in accordance with the
terms of the Settlement Agreement.
All class members who did not validly and timely request exclusion
from the Settlement have released their claims, as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement, against any of the released parties.
Except as to any class members who have validly and timely
requested exclusion, Judge Bernal dismissed the action with
prejudice, with all parties to bear their own fees and costs except
as set forth herein and in the prior orders of the Court.
Without affecting the finality of the Order, the Court retains
jurisdiction over the parties, including the Class Members, for the
purposes of construing, enforcing, and administering the Order and
Judgment, as well as the Settlement Agreement itself.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2022 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3htb595x from Leagle.com.
SOCLEAN INC: Bradley Consumer Suit Moved From D.N.H. to W.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LEONARD BRADLEY and CHINEDU EKWEOZOH, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. SOCLEAN, INC., Case
No. 1:21-cv-01029, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Hampshire to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on March 14, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00439-JFC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty,
negligence, strict product liability, unjust enrichment, medical
monitoring, and violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act
and the Nebraska Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act by marketing
a defective continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) sanitizing
device.
SoClean, Inc. is a manufacturer of cleaning devices, with its
principal place of business at 12 Vose Farm Road, Peterborough, New
Hampshire. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew V. Burrows, Esq.
GALLAGHER, CALLAHAN & GARTRELL, P.C.
214 North Main Street
Concord, NH 03301
Telephone: (603) 545-3643
Facsimile: (603) 224-7588
E-mail: burrows@gcglaw.com
- and –
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
- and –
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON LEITZ & KLINGER LLP
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com
- and –
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAWFIRM LLC
134 Kings Hwy E., Fl. 2
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 772-7200
E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
- and –
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 234-6486
E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
SOUTHEASTRANS INC: Jones Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SOUTHEASTRANS, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00037-BSM (E.D.
Ark., March 8, 2022) is a collective action brought by the
Plaintiff against the Defendant for violations of the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.
Ms. Jones was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid driver
from February of 2021 until December of 2021. She and similarly
situated drivers are allegedly deprived of sufficient overtime
compensation for all of the hours worked over 40 per week.
Southeastrans, Inc. owns and operates a non-emergency medical
transportation business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick Wilson, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (800) 615-4946
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: patrick@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
SURGICAL CARE: Pena Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
Davita Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 11, 2022, that on July 16, 2021, a former
DaVita employee filed a putative class action complaint in the
matter of "Pena v. Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC, et al." in the
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois. On August 6,
2021, the plaintiff in the Pena case filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal and the court dismissed the complaint on August 9, 2021.
Surgical Care Affiliates, Inc. is part of Optum which DaVita
Healthcare Partners was formerly known.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: FWK Sues Over Copaxone Market Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------
FWK HOLDINGS, LLC, KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., d/b/a/ KINNEY
DRUGS, INC., MEIJER, INC., and MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES, LTD., TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., TEVA NEUROSCIENCE, INC., and TEVA SALES
& MARKETING, INC. Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01232 (D.N.J., March
7, 2022) alleges that the Defendant willfully maintained monopoly
power by using restrictive or exclusionary conduct in violation of
the Sherman Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, Teva unlawfully suppressed generic
competition for Copaxone, its injectable drug product used to
reduce relapses in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple
sclerosis, by: (i) entering into exclusionary contracts with
pharmacy benefits managers and specialty pharmacies that barred
generic Copaxone; (ii) engaging in a coercive product switch to
thwart generic competition; (iii) pursuing an aggressive "Dispense
as Written" campaign fueled by misinformation about generic
Copaxone; and (iv) paying illegal kickbacks and otherwise
manipulating patient copays to boost sales of Copaxone. Through
this alleged unlawful scheme, Teva caused Plaintiffs and the Class
to purchase Copaxone despite the availability of more affordable
generics, causing Plaintiffs and the Class to suffer overcharges on
their Copaxone purchases which continue to the present day.
Teva's anticompetitive scheme to suppress generic competition
caused Plaintiffs and Class members to purchase Copaxone instead
of more cost-effective generic Copaxone, causing them to suffer
overcharges, says the suit.
Plaintiff FWK Holdings is the assignee of the claims of the Frank
W. Kerr Company, which, during the Class Period purchased Copaxone
directly from Teva at supracompetitive prices.
Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd. is an Israeli multinational
pharmaceutical company with headquarters in Petah Tikva, Israel. It
specializes primarily in generic drugs, but other business
interests include active pharmaceutical ingredients and, to a
lesser extent, proprietary pharmaceuticals.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
CARELLA, BRYNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: jcecci@carellabyrne.com
kcooper@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
Jessica MacAuley, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
Cambridge, MA 02142
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
jessicam@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Whitney Street, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (925) 204-9959
E-mail: whitneyst@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
David P. Germaine, Esq.
Eamon P. Kelly, Esq.
Alberto Rodriguez, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60603
E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com
dgermaine@sperling-law.com
ekelly@sperling-law.com
arodriguez@sperling-law.com
- and -
Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
ROBERTS LAW FIRM US, PC
20 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
Telephone: (501) 821-5575
E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
- and -
John Radice, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM
475 Wall Street
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (646) 245-8502
Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
- and -
Linda P Nussbaum, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Fl
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (917) 438-9189
E-mail: Lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
- and -
Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
Terence S. Ziegler, Esq.
Lisa Lamb Port, Esq.
Jordan E. Jacobson, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
TGI FRIDAY'S: McCollum Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHELLE MCCOLLUM, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TGI FRIDAY'S, INC. and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. 30-2022-01244325-CU-OE-CXC, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
March 14, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:22-cv-00392-DOC-JDE to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit
rest breaks, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment, failure
to pay all wages during employment, failure to reimburse necessary
business expenses, and unfair and unlawful business practices.
TGI Friday's, Inc. is an American restaurant chain company,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Dana A. Kravetz, Esq.
Lara A.H. Shortz, Esq.
Amanda K. Monroe, Esq.
MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP
10880 Wilshire Blvd., 19th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 299-5500
Facsimile: (310) 299-5600
E-mail: dkravetz@mrllp.com
lshortz@mrllp.com
amonroe@mrllp.com
THOMSON REUTERS: Stipulation to Amend Case Schedule Filed in Brooks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
n the class action lawsuit captioned as CAT BROOKS and RASHEED
SHABAZZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Thomson Reuters Corporation, Case No.
3:21-cv-01418-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order granting their stipulation to amend case schedule and
order:
Event Current Amended
Schedule Schedule
-- Disclosure of Primary Class March 1, 2022 May 2, 2022
Certification Experts:
-- Disclosure of Class May 17, 2022 Aug. 8, 2022
Certification Rebuttal
Experts:
-- Close of Class June 17, 2022 Sept. 8, 2022
Certification Expert
Discovery
-- Deadline for Plaintiff July 18, 2022 Oct. 10, 2022
to File Class
Certification Motion:
-- Deadline for Opposition Sept. 12, 2022 Dec. 15, 2022
to Class Certification:
Thomson Reuters is a Canadian multinational media conglomerate. The
company was founded in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, where it is
headquartered at the Bay Adelaide Center.
A copy of the Parties motion dated March 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34B2foM at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
Andre M. Mura, Esq.
David Stein, Esq.
Jeffrey B. Kosbie, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
505 14th Street, Suite 1110
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
amm@classlawgroup.com
ds@classlawgroup.com
jbk@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Jennifer D. Bennett, Esq.
Neil K. Sawhney, Esq.
GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 573-0336
E-mail: jennifer@guptawessler.com
neil@guptawessler.com
- and -
Albert Fox Cahn, Esq.
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY
OVERSIGHT PROJECT
40 Rector Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10006
E-mail: albert@stopspying.org
- and -
Benjamin Elga, Esq.
JUSTICE CATALYST LAW INC.
123 William Street, 16th floor
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (518) 732-6703
E-mail: belga@justicecatalyst.org
The Defendant is represented by:
Susan D. Fahringer, Esq.
Nicola C. Menaldo, Esq.
Anna M. Thompson, Esq.
Gabriella Gallego, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: (206) 359-8000
Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
E-mail: SFahringer@perkinscoie.com
NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com
AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com
GGallego@perkinscoie.com
TINDER INC: Judgment Issued After Kim's Class Deal Wins Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John F. Walter of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Western Division, entered a Judgment in the
case, LISA KIM, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TINDER, INC., a Delaware
corporation; MATCH GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; MATCH GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants,
Case No. 2-18-cv-03093-JFW-ASx (C.D. Cal.).
On Oct. 4, 2021, Plaintiff Kim sought preliminary approval of a
proposed class action settlement and filed with the Court the Class
Action Settlement Agreement. Defendants Tinder, Inc., Match Group,
LLC, and Match Group, Inc. served written notice of the proposed
class action settlement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1715.
After full consideration of the papers filed in support of and in
opposition to the motion for preliminary approval, the Court found
the matter to be appropriate for decision without oral argument and
issued its Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of Settlement
Class. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court, among
other things: (i) preliminarily certified (for settlement purposes
only) a class of the Plaintiffs (Class Members) with respect to the
claims in the Litigation; (ii) preliminarily approved the proposed
settlement; (iii) appointed the Plaintiff as the Class
Representative; (iv) appointed Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman,
P.C. and Kristensen, LLP as the Class Counsel; and (v) set the date
and time for the Final Approval hearing for Jan. 10, 2022 at 1:30
p.m., which was subsequently continued to Feb. 25, 2022 at 8:00
a.m.
On Nov. 29, 2021, Allan Candelore, Rich Allison, and Steve Frye
filed their Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. On the same
day, the Class Counsel filed their Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Costs, and Incentive Awards.
On Dec. 13, 2021, the Class Counsel filed their Motion for Final
Approval of Class Settlement, requesting final certification of the
settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
(b)(3) and final approval of the class action settlement.
On Feb. 25, 2022, a Final Approval Hearing was held.
The Court read and considered the Agreement, Allison's and Frye's
Motion for Attorneys' Fees, the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys'
Fees, and the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval, and all papers
filed in support and in opposition thereto, and the complete record
in the Litigation. On March 4, 2022, the Court issued its Order
granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Allison's and
Frye's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, and the Plaintiff's Motion for
Final Approval, good cause appearing therefor.
For purposes of approval of the Settlement and Final Approval
Order, Judge Walter certified the Settlement Class, which consists
of every person in California who subscribed to Tinder Plus or
Tinder Gold during the period between March 2, 2015 and March 1,
2019 and at the time of the subscription was at least 29 years old
and was charged a higher rate than younger subscribers, except for
persons who have timely opted out of the Settlement Class.
The 979 persons who opted out pursuant to the procedures identified
in the Notice and incorporated in the Order by reference will not
form part of the Settlement Class pursuant to the Agreement.
For the purpose of Settlement, Judge Walter certified as Class
Counsel the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., and Carpenter
Zuckerman.
Upon the Effective Date, the Plaintiff and all members of the
Settlement Class, except the excluded individuals who have opted
out of the Settlement, will have, by operation of the Judgment and
the Final Approval Order, fully, finally and forever released,
relinquished, and discharged Defendants from all claims as defined
by the terms of the Settlement. Upon the Effective Date, all
members of the Settlement Class will be and are permanently barred
and enjoined from the institution or prosecution of any and all of
the claims released under the terms of the Agreement.
Nothing in the Order will bar any action or claim to enforce the
terms of the Agreement.
For the reasons stated in the Court's Final Approval Order,
including that the hourly rates sought by the Class Counsel are
reasonable and the costs and expenses were reasonably incurred, in
recognition of the Plaintiff's efforts and risks taken on behalf of
the Settlement Class, and in accordance with the terms of the
Agreement, the following amounts will be paid by the Defendants
from the Settlement Fund: Attorneys' Fees to Class Counsel in the
total amount of $1.2 million; Costs and expenses to the Class
Counsel in the total amount of $29,833.76; and Incentive Award to
the Plaintiff in the total amount of $5,000.
For the reasons stated in the Court's Final Approval Order, the
following amount will be paid by the Defendants from the Settlement
Fund: Attorneys' Fees to Allison's and Frye's counsel in the total
amount of $1.04 million; and Costs and expenses to Allison's and
Frye's counsel in the total amount of $7,241.63.
Except as expressly provided in the Order, the Plaintiff will take
nothing against Defendant by her First Amended Complaint, and final
judgment will be entered as set forth therein.
Judgment will be entered with respect to all individual and class
claims. The Judgment is intended to be a final judgment disposing
of the action in its entirety. Without affecting the finality of
the Judgment hereby entered, the Court reserves jurisdiction over
the implementation of the Agreement.
Without further order of the Court, the Parties may agree to
reasonable extensions of time to carry out any provisions of the
Agreement.
There is no just reason for delay in the entry of the Judgment, and
immediate entry by the Clerk of Court is expressly directed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2022 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3c2jek92 from Leagle.com.
TK PROMOTIONS: Carracedo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALICIA LIENS CARRACEDO, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. TK PROMOTIONS, INC. D/B/A BT'S GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, and
GREGG BERGER, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-20692 (S.D. Fla., March
8, 2022) is an action brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime wages from the Defendant under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work as a waitress on
January 2, 2019, and resigned in August 2021 due, in part, to
Defendants' alleged failure to properly compensate her.
TK Promotions, Inc., d/b/a BT's Gentlemen's Club, operates a night
club.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob K. Auerbach, Esq.
GALLUP AUERBACH
4000 Hollywood Boulevard
Presidential Circle-Suite 265
South Hollywood, FL 33021
Telephone: (954) 894-3035
E-mail: jauerbach@gallup-law.com
UKG INC: Fails to Protect Employees' Personal Info, Bente Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM BENTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and the general public, Plaintiff v. UKG, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00289-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal., March 4, 2022) arises
from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Consumer
Privacy Act, the California Customer Records Act, and the
California Unfair Competition Law.
The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendant for
its failure to implement and maintain reasonable security
procedures and practices with respect to the sensitive and
confidential personal information it obtains from its customers'
employees; the consequent data breach of its systems that began in
December of 2021; and the resultant shut down of payroll services
that is ongoing as of the filing of this complaint.
As a result of its lack of adequate security measures, UKG was
attacked by hackers who launched a ransomware attack on UKG's
timekeeping system, Kronos Private Cloud, on December 11, 2021,
exposing millions of workers' sensitive and confidential personal
identifying information to cybercriminals. The attack also crippled
timekeeping and payroll systems, resulting in workers not being
paid, being paid late, or being paid incorrectly. Many of the
affected organizations include hospitals and healthcare systems,
including Plaintiff's employer, Family Health Centers of San Diego,
a nonprofit clinic provider of health care, says the suit.
The Plaintiff has been employed by FHCSD as a business analyst
since 2017.
UKG, Inc. is a workforce management software company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
Elisa Pineda,Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
alexis@consumersadvocates.com
kas@consumersadvocates.com
elisa@consumersadvocates.com
UNITED SHORE: Bhasin Suit Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RISHI BHASIN, ANNE JAMES, NELSON OTERO, FIRST PLUS
FUNDING, INC., FIRST ALLIED FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., and RELIANCE
MORTGAGE SERVICE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED SHORE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC d/b/a
UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE, Defendant, Case No. 20-13278 (E.D.
Mich.), Judge Laurie J. Michelson of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an
Opinion and Order:
a. granting United Wholesale Mortgage's (UWM's) motion to
dismiss the individually named Plaintiffs for failure to
state a claim; and
b. denying UWM's motions to dismiss the brokers' claims for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to
state a claim.
I. Introduction
The matter is a contract dispute between about 100 mortgage brokers
and a wholesale mortgage company, United Shore Financial Services,
LLC, d/b/a United Wholesale Mortgage (UWM). And it is a narrow one.
The brokers each entered into a form contract with UWM that said
that UWM would underwrite mortgages for the brokers' clients and,
in exchange, pay the brokers' commissions. In March 2020, UWM
unilaterally amended a term of the agreement, which the brokers
agree they could do. But then UWM applied that new term
retroactively, which the brokers argue they could not do. Then UWM
began invoicing the brokers and withholding commissions based on
the retroactive application of that new term. So the brokers filed
suit seeking damages and declaratory relief, as well as class
certification under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
II. Background
The Plaintiffs are six independent mortgage brokers -- some private
individual brokers, some brokerage companies -- who seek to
represent a class of similarly-situated persons. Attaching a form
Wholesale Broker Agreement to the complaint, the brokers explain
that UWM would underwrite mortgages for the brokers' clients and,
in return, pay the brokers' commissions.
Four provisions are relevant to the Judge Michelson's Opinion. The
first is an "early payoff" clause (EPO). UWM explains that the EPO
seeks to prevent "churn" by "reducing] the incentive for brokers to
obtain multiple commissions from a single consumer by convincing
that consumer to quickly refinance their loan." To that end, the
EPO requires brokers to repay UWM for any commissions on mortgages
that are refinanced by their clients within six months of the
loan's funding date. The second two clauses pertain to contract
modification. The first of these says: "7.01. Amendment of
Agreement. Except as set forth on Section 7.08, this Agreement may
not be amended except in writing executed by authorized
representatives of both Broker and UWM." And section 7.08 gives UWM
the power to unilaterally amend the contract under certain
conditions.
Specifically, the agreement says that "the submission of any
Mortgage Loan Applications to UWM after such amendment will be
Broker's agreement to the amendment without further signature or
consent of any kind. Any such amendment will apply to pending,
and/or future Mortgage Loan Applications submitted by Broker." And
finally, the agreement provides reasonable attorney fees and costs
to the prevailing party in any legal action.
UWM unilaterally changed the terms of the EPO on March 12, 2020. On
that date, it sent approximately 100 brokers an email explaining
that they would now have to repay commissions on any loans that
were refinanced by their clients within 12 months of the funding
date, rather than the standard six months. And a video attached to
the email informed the affected brokers that UWM planned to apply
the 12-month EPO retroactively. Shortly thereafter, UWM began
sending invoices to the brokers demanding repayment of commissions
for already-closed loans under the new EPO and withholding
commissions from unrelated transactions (i.e., new mortgage loans)
to recoup the disputed funds.
The only dispute in the case is the retroactive application of the
12-month EPO. In particular, the brokers say that UWM did not have
the power to retroactively apply that new EPO to already closed and
funded loans. So in their view, UWM breached the contract when it
withheld or tried to recoup commissions on loans that were (1)
closed and funded before March 12, 2020 -- the day the email was
sent -- and (2) refinanced in more than six months but less than 12
months after the funding date. UWM offers two different views of
the retroactivity of the EPO. In the video, UWM suggested that the
12-month EPO applied to any loan closed after March 12, 2019. But
in its briefs, UWM says the "12-month EPO only applied to loans
refinanced after UWM provided notice of the 12-month EPO
amendment."
Unable to resolve their differences, the brokers filed suit for
breach of contract and declaratory relief in December 2020.
Specifically, they seek damages and a declaration that "UWM's
amendment of the 'Early Payoffs' provision of their contract does
not apply to loans that had been closed and funded prior to the
proposed amendment." And they seek class certification under CAFA
for "[a]ll Brokers who contracted with UWM under the Wholesale
Lending Agreement (or similar agreement) and whose commissions were
withheld or who were invoiced for commissions on loans that were
paid off over 180 days after funding by UWM."
In time, UWM filed a motion to dismiss, making two primary
arguments. First, under Rule 12(b)(1), it argues that the brokers
cannot meet the requisite $5 million amount in controversy or the
minimum class of 100 plaintiffs necessary to establish federal
subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).
Second, under Rule 12(b)(6), they argue that the individual
plaintiffs (as opposed to the brokerage companies who actually
executed contracts with UWM) cannot state a plausible claim for
relief because they were not parties to or beneficiaries of the
contract on which they base their claims.
UWM also filed a second motion to dismiss. This motion raises a
third, separate argument under Rule 12(b)(6): That some brokers
cannot state a plausible claim for relief because the broker
agreement allowed UWM to amend terms unilaterally, and the brokers
accepted that amendment by continuing to submit loans to UWM.
Shortly thereafter, the Court ordered UWM to show cause as to "why
the Court should not dismiss the First Motion to Dismiss as
superseded by the second or the Second Motion to Dismiss as
improper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g) in light of
the first." In its response, UWM explained that the second motion
to dismiss should be permitted because it "expressly addresses the
Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction," among other reasons.
The Court ultimately permitted the second motion.
UWM later withdrew its motions to dismiss while the parties
attempted to resolve their differences, but ultimately refiled
them. Both motions are, again, fully briefed. The parties have
provided extensive briefing that enables resolution of the motion
without the need for further argument.
III. Analysis
A. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Judge Michelson begins, as she must, with UWM's attack on its
subject-matter jurisdiction. CAFA grants federal subject-matter
jurisdiction over class actions where the amount in controversy is
greater than $5 million, the class has at least 100 members, and
the parties are minimally diverse. UWM argues the brokers cannot
claim federal jurisdiction under CAFA because (1) fewer than 100
brokers were impacted by the 12-month EPO, and (2) the total
damages are less than $5 million in the aggregate.
First, given the evidence available, Judge Michelson concludes that
the proposed class will likely include 100 members, which is
sufficient for CAFA jurisdiction. And this is in line with
Congress' direction that "in cases in which it is unclear whether
'the number of members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the
aggregate is less than 100,' a federal court should err in favor of
exercising jurisdiction over the matter."
Next, Judge Michelson finds that the brokers have satisfied the
requirements for subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA. And she
notes that this conclusion is in line with "CAFA's primary
objective: Ensuring 'Federal court consideration of interstate
cases of national importance under diversity jurisdiction.'"
B. The Merits
Because the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction, Judge Michelson
now considers UWM's motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim
under Rule 12(b)(6). UWM makes three arguments under Rule
12(b)(6).
The first is easily dealt with. UWM asks the Court to dismiss the
individually named Plaintiffs because "none of the Individual
Plaintiffs allege they entered into a contract with UWM. Rather,
the Complaint uniformly alleges the Company Plaintiffs entered into
the Agreement." The brokers have no issue with this request, so the
motion is granted in part.
The second argument -- which was addressed in the context of Rule
12(b)(1) -- requires a bit more attention. She states that just as
the Court was forbidden from considering the merits of the claim
under the 12(b)(1) standard, it is equally forbidden from
considering Julie Plotnik's affidavit under the 12(b)(6) standard.
So, again, UWM cannot make a back-door argument about
subject-matter jurisdiction that both seeks to reach the merits of
the claim and relies on an affidavit.
Setting aside any jurisdictional implications, Judge Michelson
finally considers UWM's contractual arguments on the merits. And,
as is proper at the 12(b)(6) stage, she only considers the
complaint, the Wholesale Broker Agreement that was attached to the
complaint, and the video that UWM cited in its motion to dismiss
because the video is referenced in the complaint and is central to
the brokers' claims.
Judge Michelson explains that Section 7.08 says that the submission
of new loan applications "shall" be the brokers' acceptance of a
unilateral amendment proposed by UWM, and that any such amendment
"shall" apply to pending and future loan applications. Nothing in
7.08 suggests that brokers can accept amendments to previously
closed and funded loans merely by submitting new loan applications.
So Judge Michelson looks to the more general rule provided in 7.01,
which requires that the parties agree to amendments in "a writing
executed by authorized representatives of both Broker and UWM."
Nothing in the materials the Court can consider on a 12(b)(6)
motion suggest that such a writing exists in the case. Because
neither 7.01 nor 7.08 seem to permit the brokers to accept a
retroactive amendment merely by submitting new loans, she sees no
reason why brokers who submitted new loan applications after March
12, 2020 fail to state a claim.
In conclusion, Judge Michelson finds that the brokers have stated a
claim for breach of contract.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, Judge Michelson granted in part and denied in part
UWM's motions to dismiss. She granted UWM's motion to dismiss the
individually named Plaintiffs for failure to state a claim. But,
for the reasons she explained, she otherwise denied UWM's motions
to dismiss the brokers' claims for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc7tf26j from Leagle.com.
UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Flips Reversal of Fazaga Claims' Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ET AL., Petitioners
v. YASSIR FAZAGA, ET AL., Case No. 20-828 (U.S.), the Supreme Court
of the United States reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversing the District Court's
dismissal of the claims in question, and remanded the case for
further proceedings consistent with its Opinion.
I. Introduction
In the case, the Supreme Court considers the relationship between
the longstanding "state secrets" privilege and a provision of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), 92 Stat.
1783, 50 U. S. C. Section 1801 et seq., that provides a procedure
under which a trial-level court or other authority may consider the
legality of electronic surveillance conducted under FISA and may
thereafter order specified forms of relief. The case was brought in
federal court by three Muslim residents of Southern California who
allege that the Federal Bureau of Investigation illegally
surveilled them and others under FISA because of their religion. In
response, the Defendants (Government) invoked the state secrets
privilege and asked the District Court to dismiss most of the
Respondents' claims because the disclosure of counter-intelligence
information that was vital to an evaluation of those claims would
threaten national-security interests. The District Court agreed
with the Government's argument and dismissed the claims in
question, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, reasoning that Section
1806(f) "displaced" the state secrets privilege.
II. Background
Respondents Yassir Fazaga, Ali Malik, and Yasser Abdel Rahim are
members of Muslim communities in southern California who claim that
the Federal Bureau of Investigation illegally surveilled them
because of their religion. They allege that the FBI directed a
confidential informant to "gather information on Muslims in an
indiscriminate manner." This informant purportedly infiltrated a
Muslim community and gathered "hundreds of phone numbers and
thousands of email addresses of Muslims"; "hundreds of hours of
video recordings" made inside mosques, homes, and other private
locations; and "thousands of hours of audio recording of
conversations" and of "public discussion groups, classes, and
lectures." The Respondents allege that the surveillance operation
ended when the informant, at the FBI's instruction, began asking
members of the community about violent jihad, and some of those
individuals reported the informant to the FBI and local police.
In 2011, the Respondents filed the putative class action against
the United States, the FBI, and two FBI officials in their official
capacities. They claimed that the Government's unlawful
information-gathering operation violated their rights under the
Establishment Clause; the Free Exercise Clause; the Fourth
Amendment; the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's
Due Process Clause; the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U. S.
C. Section 2000bb et seq.; the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U. S. C.
Section 1346; FISA, 50 U. S. C. Section 1810; the Privacy Act, 5 U.
S. C. Section 552a; and California law.
The Government moved to dismiss all those claims and argued, among
other things, that the state secrets privilege required dismissal
of most of them. To that end, Attorney General Holder filed a
declaration asserting a "formal claim of the state secrets
privilege in order to protect the national security interests of
the United States." This claim applied to the following categories
of information: Information that could "confirm or deny whether a
particular individual was or was not the subject of an FBI
counterterrorism investigation," information that could reveal the
"initial reasons" for or the "status and results" of an "FBI
counterterrorism investigation," and information that could reveal
the "sources and methods" used in such an investigation. An
Assistant Director of the FBI filed a public declaration explaining
why disclosure "reasonably could be expected to cause significant
harm to national security," along with a more detailed classified
declaration.
After reviewing both "the public and classified filings," the
District Court held that the state secrets privilege required
dismissal of all respondents' claims against the Government, except
for the claim under FISA, 50 U. S. C. Section 1810, which it
dismissed on sovereign-immunity grounds. The District Court
concluded that litigation of the claims it dismissed "would require
or unjustifiably risk disclosure of secret and classified
information."
The Ninth Circuit reversed in relevant part and held that "Congress
intended FISA to displace the state secrets privilege and its
dismissal remedy with respect to electronic surveillance." That
holding depended on two subsidiary conclusions. First, the Court of
Appeals held that "Section 1806(f) procedures are to be used when
an aggrieved person affirmatively challenges, in any civil case,
the legality of electronic surveillance or its use in litigation,
whether the challenge is under FISA itself, the Constitution, or
any other law." Second, the Court of Appeals held that, where
Section 1806(f)'s procedures apply, it "speaks quite directly to
the question otherwise answered by the dismissal remedy sometimes
required by the common law state secrets privilege." That is so,
the Court of Appeals reasoned, because Section 1806(f)'s procedures
are "animated by the same concerns" as the state secrets privilege
and "triggered" by a "nearly identical" process. It thus reversed
the District Court's dismissal of the Respondents' claims on state
secrets grounds.
The Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc over the dissent of
Judge Bumatay and nine other judges. The Supreme Court granted
certiorari to decide whether Section 1806(f) displaces the state
secrets privilege.
III. Discussion
A.
Much of the parties' argumentation in the Supreme Court concerns
the correct interpretation of Section 1806(f). The Government
contends that the Ninth Circuit erred because Section 1806(f) is
"'relevant only when a litigant challenges the admissibility of the
government's surveillance evidence.'"
But the Respondents interpret that provision more broadly. They
argue that Section 1806(f) is also sometimes triggered when "a
civil litigant seeks to obtain such secret information." And they
say that Section 1806(f) applies in the case for two reasons.
First, they note that Section 1806(f) is triggered not only when
the Government gives notice that it intends to "enter into
evidence" information obtained by means of covered surveillance but
also when it notifies the court that it "intends to otherwise use"
such information. Second, the Respondents note that Section 1806(f)
applies when an "aggrieved person" makes "any motion or request" to
"discover or obtain" electronic-surveillance evidence, and they say
that their complaint's request for an injunction ordering the
Government to "destroy or return any information gathered through
the unlawful surveillance program" triggered that provision.
The Supreme Court need not resolve this dispute about the meaning
of Section 1806(f) because it reverses the Ninth Circuit on an
alternative ground -- namely, that even as interpreted by the
Respondents, Section 1806(f) does not displace the state secrets
privilege. It reaches this conclusion for two reasons.
First, the text of FISA weighs heavily against the Respondents'
displacement argument. FISA makes no reference to the state secrets
privilege. It neither mentions the privilege by name nor uses any
identifiable synonym, and its only reference to the subject of
privilege reflects a desire to avoid the alteration of privilege
law. The absence of any statutory reference to the state secrets
privilege is strong evidence that the availability of the privilege
was not altered in any way. Regardless of whether the state secrets
privilege is rooted only in the common law (as respondents argue)
or also in the Constitution (as the Government argues), the
privilege should not be held to have been abrogated or limited
unless Congress has at least used clear statutory language.
Even if the Respondents' interpretation of Section 1806(f) is
accepted, the Supreme Court opines that nothing about the operation
of that provision is at all incompatible with the state secrets
privilege. The Ninth Circuit thought that Section 1806(f) and the
privilege are "animated by the same concerns," and the Respondents
argue that they operate in "fundamentally similar" ways, but that
is simply wrong.
For those reasons, the Supreme Court concludes that Congress did
not eliminate, curtail, or modify the state secrets privilege when
it enacted Section 1806(f).
B.
The Supreme Court reiterates that today's decision addresses only
the narrow question whether Section 1806(f) displaces the state
secrets privilege. Because it concludes that Section 1806(f) does
not have that effect under either party's interpretation of the
statute, the Supreme Court does not decide which interpretation is
correct. Nor does it decide whether the Government's evidence is
privileged or whether the District Court was correct to dismiss the
Respondents' claims on the pleadings. According to the Respondents,
the state secrets privilege authorizes dismissal only where the
case concerns a Government contract or where the very subject of
the action is secret. The Government, by contrast, relies on lower
court cases permitting dismissal in other circumstances. The Ninth
Circuit did not decide those questions, and the Supreme Court does
not resolve them in the instant.
IV. Conclusion
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mr3wumkf from Leagle.com.
UTGR INC: Barton Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Barton, Timothy Bartholomew, Johan Tapia, and those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UTGR, Inc. d/b/a Bally's Twin
River Lincoln Casino Resort, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00096
(D.R.I., March 7, 2022) is a class action brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Rhode Island General Laws arising
from the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiffs appropriate minimum
wages and overtime compensation.
The Plaintiffs worked for Twin River as hourly-paid tipped
employees for all or some of the operative limitations period.
UTGR, Inc., d/b/a Bally's Twin River Lincoln Casino Resort,
operates a casino located in Lincoln, Rhode Island.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Chip Muller, Esq.
Nancy S. Sheinberg, Esq.
MULLER LAW, LLC
47 Wood Ave.
Barrington, RI 02806
Telephone: (401) 256-5171
E-mail: chip@mullerlaw.com
nancy@mullerlaw.com
- and -
Benjamin Knox Steffans, Esq.
STEFFANS LEGAL LLC
7 North Street, Suite 307
Pittsfield, MA 01201
Telephone: (413) 418-4176
E-mail: bsteffans@steffanslegal.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq.
CONNOR & MORNEAU LLP
273 State Street, 2nd Floor
Springfield, MA 01103
Telephone: (413) 455-1730
E-mail: jmorneau@cmolawyers.com
VARSITY BRANDS: Wins Bid for Protective Order vs American Spirit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as American Spirit and Cheer
Essentials, Inc. et al v. Varsity Brands, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-02782-SHL-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Tu M. Pham
entered an order granting the defendants' motion for protective
order and denying plaintiffs' motion for sanctions or to compel.
The June 1 Protective Order remains in effect. Because of this,
plaintiffs' motion for sanctions or to compel is denied and
defendants' motion for protective order is granted. The Plaintiffs
are ordered to refrain from serving the subpoenas at issue in this
motion, or, if already served, to withdraw them upon the entry of
this order, the Court says.
The case involves anti-trust claims brought against Varsity Brands,
its affiliated brands and companies, and its prior and present
owners. In brief, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants
conspired to and did in fact form a monopoly over the
cheerleading and scholastic merchandise industry in the United
States. The plaintiffs filed their complaint on July 24, 2020,
seeking class certification, damages, and injunctive relief.
The case was transferred from the Northern District of Georgia to
this court on October 28, 2020.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J9fV9J at no extra charge.[CC]
VERO BEACH, FL: Class Status Bid Hearing Set for April 12
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAIG v. CITY OF VERO
BEACH, et al., Case No. 9:21-cv-80391 (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Robin L. Rosenberg entered an order setting hearing on amended
motion to certify class and to appoint class representative and
class counsel.
Motion hearing is set for April 12, 2022 01:00 PM in West Palm
Beach Division before Judge Robin L. Rosenberg, the Court says.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights.
Vero Beach is a small Florida city, with Atlantic-facing beaches on
a barrier island across the Indian River Lagoon. South Beach Park
offers wide sands and volleyball courts. Downtown's South Beach
Park chronicles the local citrus industry.[CC]
VISION SOLAR: Oral Argument in Smith Set for April 5
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEWART SMITH; FRED
HEIDARPOUR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. VISION SOLAR LLC, and DOES 1-10, Case No.
2:20-cv-02185-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Baylson
entered an order regarding motion for class certification that:
1. The Defendant shall file an "offer of proof," limited to
10 pages, by March 8, 2022;
2. The parties shall file supplemental briefing, limited to
10 pages, by March 15, 2022. The parties' briefing shall
focus on: (1) whether Plaintiffs' evidence is sufficient
for the Court to conclude that the calls at issue were
made with an "automatic telephone dialing system," see 47
U.S.C. section 227(a)(1), as defined in Facebook, Inc. v.
Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021); and (2) whether Vision
Solar is responsible for the alleged robocalls, with an
emphasis on Third Circuit jurisprudence; and
3. Oral argument on the above is tentatively scheduled for
Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3A.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35KGmEk at no extra charge.[CC]
VXL ENTERPRISES: Duff FLSA Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOHNNYE DUFF and JANELLE HERNANDEZ AVITIA, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. VXL
ENTERPRISES LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-08891, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
March 14, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:22-cv-01579-DMR to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to compensate
the Plaintiffs and similarly situated nurses overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and failure to
timely pay all wages owed upon separation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code.
VXL Enterprises LLC is a provider of long term and contingency
operation support, training, tactical and combat medical solutions,
with its principal place of business located at 701 Kenmore Ave.,
Ste. 230, Fredericksburg, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Feder, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL FEDER
235 Montgomery Street Suite 1019
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 391-9476
Facsimile: (415) 391-9432
E-mail: daniel@dfederlaw.com
- and –
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
WALMART INC: Van der Steeg Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAWN VAN DER STEEG, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. WALMART INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-62395,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on March 14, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-01398-DRH-AYS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraud, unjust enrichment, and
violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
by manufacturing, marketing, and selling Equate antiperspirant
aerosol and spray products that contain dangerously high levels of
benzene, a known human carcinogen.
Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation, with
its headquarters at 702 SW 8th Street, Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com
WEXFORD MEDICAL: Some Calderson Claims Remain After Prelim. Review
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David W. Dugan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois entered a Memorandum and Order on his
preliminary review of the case, NELSON CALDERSON, Plaintiff v.
WEXFORD MEDICAL SERVICES, ALISA DEARMOND, DR. BUTALID, ZIMMER,
DR.SIDDIQUI, MOLDENHAUER, WILLS, JEFFREYS, IDOC, CRAIN, BERT,
JANEDOE, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-1061-DWD (S.D. Ill.).
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Calderson, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (IDOC), brings the civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional
rights at Menard Correctional Center. The Plaintiff alleges that on
Dec. 4, 2019, he suffered a heart attack at Menard. He alleges that
in the six months leading up to his heart attack he received
inadequate medical care, which he suggests caused his heart attack.
He seeks compensatory relief.
The Plaintiff's Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary
review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. Under Section 1915A,
the Court is required to screen prisoner complaints to filter out
non-meritorious claims. Any portion of a complaint that is legally
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law
is immune from such relief must be dismissed.
At this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se complaint
are to be liberally construed. However, conclusory statements and
labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to state a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face. The pleading
standard does not require detailed factual allegations, but it does
require "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation." A pleading that offers "labels and conclusions" or "a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do."
II. Background
The Plaintiff claims that prior to his heart attack, he notified
Menard medical personnel that he had been experiencing headaches,
dizziness, lightheadedness and shortness of breath. He alleges that
the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
condition, and that their indifference ultimately caused him to
suffer a serious heart attack. He additionally alleges that
Defendant Wexford contributed to the harm he suffered because they
have an unwritten policy of depriving inmates of proper medical
treatment in order to save money.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' actions violated IDOC
policies. In the amended complaint, the Plaintiff added allegations
about class action litigation in Lippert v. Jeffreys, 10-cv-4603
(N.D. Ill. 2019). He claims that he is a class member in that
litigation, and that the litigation put Defendants Wexford,
Siddiqui, Wills, and Jeffreys on notice of the inadequacy of
healthcare in the IDOC.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that Wexford has deliberately
understaffed Menard, which left his high blood pressure untreated.
The Plaintiff claims that he was never warned about the severity of
high blood pressure or the fact that if left untreated it could
cause a stroke or heart attack. He further alleges if he had known
of the risks, he could have requested better care. He also claims
that medical staff are inadequately trained. As to the care he
received for his heart attack, the Plaintiff claims that Defendant
Dearmond followed a Wexford policy of treating inmates like they
are lying about their ailments.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Jeffreys, Wills, and Siddiqui
are responsible for ensuring adequate medical care for inmates. He
claims that these three failed to provide adequate care at Menard,
which resulted in his heart attack.
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates the
following Counts: Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference
claim against Defendants Dearmond, Butalid, Zimmer, Siddiqui,
Moldenhauer and Bert for their treatment of the Plaintiff's chest
pain and heart attack; Count 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference for their oversight of medical services at Menard
against Defendants Wills, Jeffreys, and Crain; and Count 3: Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Wexford Health
Sources, Inc. and Siddiqui for the alleged policy or practice that
harmed the Plaintiff.
III. Discussion
Judge Dugan finds that Claim 1 is adequate to survive initial
review against all the named Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that
each of these individuals participated in the direct care for his
ongoing chest pain, or on the day of his heart attack, so he can
maintain an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need against these parties.
In Claim 2, the Plaintiff alleges that Wills and Jeffreys were put
on notice that the medical care at Menard was inadequate by an
ongoing class action lawsuit, and they failed to address the
medical care issues. Plaintiff also names Defendant Crain, the
healthcare unit administrator at Menard, but he does not have
factual allegations particularized to Crain in the complaint. In
order to hold an individual personally liable, a defendant must be
"personally responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional
right.
Judge Dugan finds that beyond the allegation that a class action
lawsuit exists concerning the state of medical care in the IDOC,
the Plaintiff has not alleged how these individuals personally
acted to cause him harm. The general responsibility for oversight
of a correctional facility does not give rise to liability for
deliberate indifference to a medical condition. There are no
allegations that these defendants were made aware of the
Plaintiff's personal need for medical care and that they failed to
act. Accordingly, Judge Dugan will dismiss Claim 2 as
insufficiently pled.
Claim 3 relates to a policy or custom held by Defendant Wexford and
implemented by Defendant Siddiqui. Wexford, a private corporation,
cannot be held liable under Section 1983 unless the constitutional
violation was caused by an unconstitutional policy or custom of the
corporation itself. Judge Dugan holds that the Plaintiff has
specifically alleged that Defendants Wexford and Siddiqui maintain
a policy or custom that prevented medical staff from giving him
adequate care. Accordingly, this allegation does not state a claim
IV. Disposition
Judge Dugan ordered that Claim 1 of the Complaint survives initial
screening as described against Defendants Dearmond, Dr. Butalid,
Zimmer, Dr. Siddiqui, Moldenhauer, and Bert. Claim 3 survives
review against Wexford Health Sources, Inc. and Siddiqui. Claim 2
is dismissed without prejudice as to Defendants Wills, Jeffreys and
Crain. Because Claim 2 was the only claim against these parties,
the Clerk will terminate Wills, Jeffreys and Crain. The Clerk is
also directed to terminate Jane Doe because there are no
freestanding claims against this party. Although the Plaintiff had
sufficient funds to pay his filing fee in the case, Judge Dugan
recognized that his financial status is similar to that of an
indigent inmate, and so the Court will provide service of process
on his behalf.
The Clerk of Court is directed to prepare for Defendants Dearmond,
Dr. Butalid, Zimmer, Dr. Siddiqui, Moldenhauer, Bert, and Wexford
Health Sources, Inc.: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request
to Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service
of Summons). The Clerk is directed to mail these forms, a copy of
the Complaint and Amended Complaint, and the Memorandum and Order
to the Defendants' place of employment as identified by the
Plaintiff. If the Defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of
Service of Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the
date the forms were sent, the Clerk will take appropriate steps to
effect formal service on Defendant, and the Court will require the
Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent
authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
If a Defendant cannot be found at the work address provided by the
Plaintiff, the employer will furnish the Clerk with the Defendant's
current work address, or, if not known, the Defendant's last-known
address. This information will be used only for sending the forms
as directed above or for formally effecting service. Any
documentation of the address will be retained only by the Clerk.
Address information will not be maintained in the court file or
disclosed by the Clerk.
The Defendants are ordered to timely file an appropriate responsive
pleading to the Complaint and will not waive filing a reply
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(g). Pursuant to Administrative
Order No. 244, the Defendants need only respond to the issues
stated in the Merits Review Order.
If judgment is rendered against the Plaintiff, and the judgment
includes the payment of costs under Section 1915, the Plaintiff
will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, regardless of
whether his application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted.
The Plaintiff is advised that he is under a continuing obligation
to inform the Clerk of Court and each opposing party of any address
changes; the Court will not independently investigate his
whereabouts. This will be done in writing and not later than seven
days after a transfer or other change of address occurs. Failure to
comply with the Order will cause a delay in the transmission of
court documents and may result in dismissal of the action for
failure to prosecute.
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Clerk of Court is
directed to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant
to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 4, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ysmv8mms from Leagle.com.
WHOLE FOODS: Foster Balks at Mislabeled Fish Oil Softgel Product
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Foster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01240 (E.D.N.Y., March 7, 2022) seeks to challenge
Defendant's alleged false and deceptive practices in the marketing
and sale of its 365 Whole Foods Market 100% Wild-Caught Fish Oil
softgels product in violation of the New York General Business
Law.
According to the complaint, the front label of each product
explicitly states as follows: "Omega-3s EPA & DHA 1000mg Per
Serving." The alleged representation leads reasonable consumers to
believe that each serving of the product contains 1000mg of
Omega-3s. However, unbeknownst to consumers, each serving of the
product only contains 300mg of Omega-3s.
The Plaintiff purchased the product and paid a premium price based
upon his reliance on Defendant's front label representations. Had
Plaintiff and Class members been aware that the product does not
contain the amount of Omega-3s per serving promised on the front
label, Plaintiff and Class members would not have purchased the
product or would have paid significantly less for it, says the
suit.
Whole Foods Market, Inc. is a Texas-based corporation responsible
for the formulation, ingredients, manufacturing, naming, marketing,
labeling, packaging, and sale of the product in the state and
across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Abiri, Esq.
CUSTODIO & DUBEY, LLP
445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 593-9095
Facsimile: (213) 785-2899
E-mail: abiri@cd-lawyers.com
WILDCAT INVESTMENTS: Foley Files Conditional Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES FOLEY,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
WILDCAT INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-5234-SDM-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
A. Conditionally certifying this case as a collective action;
B. Approving the Plaintiff's proposed Notice and Consent to
Join and proposed method of distribution including mailing
and emailing;
C. Approving the form and content;
D. Directing the Defendant to produce the requested contact
information of each putative class member in an
electronically importable and malleable electronic format,
such as Excel, within seven days after this Court's Order
is entered;
E. Allowing for an opt-in period of 90 days, to begin when
the Defendant produces the names and contact information
for the class members, in which class members may submit
Consents to Join this lawsuit as opt-in plaintiffs; and
F. Awarding costs and a reasonable attorney's fee and grant
all other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled,
whether specifically prayed for or not.
Wildcat is franchise development company specializing in
innovative, family-friendly restaurant concepts.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 1,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I456nN
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
- and -
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
Brian R. Noethlich, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
The Defendant is represented by:
Patrick Kasson, Esq.
Sunshine J. Thomas, Esq.
Reminger Co., L.P.A.
200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 800
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 228-1311
Facsimile: (614) 232-2410
E-mail: pkasson@reminger.com
sthomas@reminger.com
WOODBRIDGE LIQUIDATION: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Woodbridge Liquidation Trust disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a
settlement agreement resolved a consolidated class action lawsuit
that alleges claims for aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and violations of
California's unfair competition law.
On August 6, 2021, the Trust agreed to settle two pending actions
against Comerica Bank. The terms of the settlement reached in a
putative class action against Comerica Bank in the United States
Court for the Central District of California are the subject of a
Settlement Agreement among the plaintiffs, Comerica Bank, and the
Trust.
The Settlement Agreement resolved the action, captioned "In re
Woodbridge Investments Litigation," Case No. 2:18-cv-00103-DMG-MRW
(C.D. Cal.), a consolidated putative class action in the District
Court brought on behalf of former noteholders and unitholders of
the debtors.
The California Class Action consists of five separate lawsuits
filed between January 4, 2018 and April 26, 2018 and, as
consolidated, asserted claims for aiding and abetting fraud, aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and violations
of California's unfair competition law. The Trust is the largest
member of the putative class in the California Class Action, as
holder of approximately 60.9% of all claims against Comerica Bank
based on the claims contributed to the Trust by former investors of
the debtors.
Woodbridge Liquidation Trust is a statutory trust into collecting,
administering, distributing and liquidating its assets based in
California.
ZUFFA LLC: Bloom Balks at Disclosure of Personal Info to Facebook
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EVERETT BLOOM, on behalf of himself, and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ZUFFA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00412 (D.
Nev., March 4, 2022) is brought against the Defendant under the
Video Privacy Protection Act and the California Unfair Competition
Law for knowingly disclosing its UFC Fight Pass users' personally
identifiable information to Facebook without obtaining user
consent.
According to the complaint, Zuffa designed its Ultimate Fighting
Championship (UFC) Fight Pass webpages to include Facebook's
software code that causes the user's browser to communicate with
Facebook when the user loads one of the webpages. Although
consumers watching videos using the UFC Fight Pass intend to and
reasonably expect that they are communicating with Zuffa, this code
enables Facebook's computer network to collect and track
information about the consumer's behavior on the site. Thus, when a
consumer logs into the UFC Fight Pass and clicks on a video, Zuffa
discloses to Facebook, through the code, the consumer's Facebook
ID, the URL of the website hosting the video, which includes the
name of the video the consumer requests or obtains, and the fact
that the website viewed contains video content simultaneously, says
the suit.
Plaintiff Bloom has paid for a monthly subscription to the UFC
Fight Pass since at least December 2021.
Zuffa owns and operates the website ufcfightpass.com. Through the
Fight Pass Website, Zuffa offers consumers a subscription to
certain video content called the UFC Fight Pass.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Markman, Esq.
MARKMAN LAW
4484 S. Pecos Rd. Suite #130
Las Vegas, NV 89121
Telephone: (702) 843-5899
Facsimile: (702) 843-6010
E-mail: David@Markmanlawfirm.com
- and -
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
Kali Backer, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 336-6545
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
marie@gutridesafier.com
hayley@gutridesafier.com
kali@gutridesafier.com
*********
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 ***