/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220330.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, March 30, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 58
Headlines
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Doxie Balks at Metal Content in Infant Formula
ABBVIE INC: Consolidated Antitrust Suits Pending
ABBVIE INC: Faces Antitrust Suit in Pennsylvania Court
ACCUTECH SYSTEMS: Sharma Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
AHC MEDICAL: Choi Sues Over Physical Therapists' Unpaid Wages
ALPINESTARS USA: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ANDERSON COUNTY, TN: Accord Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal
ARD GROUP: Faces Blanco Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
AXOS BANK: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AZTAR INDIANA: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Adams Suit
BAYER US: Faces Class Action Over Mirena IUD Breast Cancer Risk
BEAUTY TREND: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BOYAR ASSET: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRAINSTORMPRODUCTS LLC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BREWERS RETAIL: Judge Certifies Pension Class Action Lawsuit
C3.AI INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of May 3 Deadline
CARNIVAL CORP: Ruby Princess COVID Outbreak Class Action Grows
CBH INTERNATIONAL: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CERENCE INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 26 Deadline
CHARLES KOMAR & SONS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHIP COOKIE: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CIOX HEALTH: Can Litigate Class Action in Federal Court
COGNOSPHERE LLC: Faces A.T. Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices
CONOCOPHILLIPS: Faces Shareholder Suit in S.D. Tex.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Vargas Consumer Suit Goes to S.D. California
CVS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Sale of Homeopathic Products
DECATHLON USA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DIAZ AND ASSOCIATES: Rastelli Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
DIVINE ASSET: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DSIL INVESTMENT: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
E.I. DU PONT: Court Refuses to Certify Nationwide PFAS Class Suit
ECHO DESIGN GROUP: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ELECTRIC & ROSE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FAT BRANDS: Faces Matthews Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
FGX INTERNATIONAL: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FIAT CHRYSLER: Olsen Files Suit in S.D. California
FREEWAY INSURANCE: Whittaker Files TCPA Suit in Arizona
FRESH MARKET: Ramsey Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
GONG CHA TEA: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HALSBROOK INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HARDY WAY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HEIDE WASHINGTON: Robinson Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
HOME DEPOT: Chiarito Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California
HOST INT'L: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert Briefing Partly OK'd
HOUSE FOODS AMERICA: Zuniga FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
HYATT CORP: Hartstein Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Labor Suit
INTERNATIONAL MARINE: Chandler Labor Suit Goes to W.D. Washington
JUUL LABS: Alexander Central Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
JUUL LABS: Alpine Union Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads in Cal.
JUUL LABS: Basin School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Caro Community Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Au Gres-Sims Suit Says
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Unified School Claims
JUUL LABS: Chandler Suit Moved From D. Arizona to N.D. California
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Clark County Suit Claims
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Canton Claims
JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Bartholomew Claims
JUUL LABS: Faces Benzie County Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Faces Evart Public Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Faces Lanesville School Suit Over E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Faces RSU-2 Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
JUUL LABS: Frankton-Lapel Sues Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Cheektowaga-Maryvale Says
JUUL LABS: Memphis Community Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
JUUL LABS: Monroe 2-Orleans Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in N.Y.
JUUL LABS: Plymouth Community Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
JUUL LABS: Potlatch School Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Idaho
JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Lake Ridge Says
JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Southwest Alleges
JUUL LABS: Roscommon Area Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing
JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Mishawaka Alleges
JUUL LABS: Wasatch County Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
JUUL LABS: West Valley Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
KROGER CO: Cochran Suit Removed to D. Kansas
L3HARRIS TECH: Faces Stengl Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
LCS COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT: Maravilla Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LIFELOCK INC: Giddings Balks at False Identity Theft Protection Ads
LOCUST MEDICAL: Jackson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
MEOW WOLF: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Navez FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
MERIDIAN LODGING: Faces Banks Suit Over Collection of Biometrics
META PLATFORMS: Logan Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MISSISSIPPI POWER: Wins Suit Over Overcharged Fees
MNG 2005 INC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Residents Win $75.3MM Court Judgment
NEW YORK FAST: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
PEABODY ENERGY: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Pending in NY Court
PEABODY ENERGY: Faces Phelps Derivative Suit
PEABODY ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York
PHH MORTGAGE: Pretrial Deadlines in Salter Extended by 60 Days
PINNACLE FOODS: Raczkowski Sues Over Deceptive Olive Oil Label
PLAYERS TRUNK: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PRESTIGE HOMECARE: Hill Sues Over Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Driggins Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Junks Cho ERISA Suit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Doyle Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Griffin RICO Suit in S.D. Fla.
RAYTHEON COMPANY: Curry Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Klein Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
RETROSPECTIVE GOODS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SALEM FIVE BANCORP: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SBS SPORTS: Sanchez Suit Seeks Blind's Access to Online Store
SESSOMS & ROGERS: Hall Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
SHEN BEAUTY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOFT SURFBOARDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOLHEIM LUTHERAN: Villeda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
STATE FARM MUTUAL: Williams Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
STEVES MARINE: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STRONGS MARINE: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SWISS FARMS PRODUCTS: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TIKTOK INC: High Court Allows Data Protection Claim to Proceed
TRANSAMERICA AGENCY: Cline Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls
TRUSTEES OF UNITE HERE: Acosta Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
UNITED AIRLINES: Loucks Suit Asserts Breach of Separation Program
UPHOLD HQ: McGuireWoods Attorneys Discuss Crypto Class Action
VALLEY PROTEINS: Settlement in Hollis Suit Wins Initial Nod
VARIETY COFFEE: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Settlement Deal in Wolther Suit Underway
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Trust Appeals Dismissal of Suit
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Sherrod Class Suit Over Defective Vehicles
WEATHERFORD FIT: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WEST CAPITAL LENDING: MacDonald Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
WESTCO CHEMICALS: Draney Suit Seeks Initial Nod of Settlement
WHITEFISH, MT: Faces Class Action Over New Dev't Impact Fees
WYNDHAM VACATION: Class Cert. Briefing Sched Continued in Ramirez
XL FLEET: Request for Pre-Motion Conference Due Jan. 12, 2023
YOUTH ON THE MOVE: Burgos FLSA Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
ZIONS BANCORP: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due June 29
ZWIFT INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
[*] Financial Sector No Longer Australia's Biggest Suit Target
[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Register Now
*********
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Doxie Balks at Metal Content in Infant Formula
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHAYLYNN DOXIE, BRITTNEY GRAY, KATALEENA HELMICK, LANI HOLLOWAY,
ASHLEY POPA and, DENIEGE REVORD, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. ABBOTT
LABORATORIES, (a Delaware corporation), Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-01376 (N.D. Ill., March 16, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for its knowing, reckless, and/or intentional
practice of failing to fully disclose the presence of arsenic,
cadmium, lead, or mercury in its Similac(R) powdered infant
Formula.
According to the complaint, the Infant Formula's packaging does not
include any type of disclaimer or disclosure regarding the presence
of heavy metals that would inform consumers of their presence.
Likewise, nothing on the packaging states that heavy metals can be
unsafe or accumulate over time resulting in developmental issues,
poisoning, injury, and/or disease. Instead, to justify a premium
price, the Defendant chose to focus on promoting its Infant Formula
as high quality, made with superior ingredients and not made with
detrimental and genetically engineered ingredients, says the suit.
As a result of this conduct, the Defendant violated the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California False
Advertising Law, the California Unfair Competition Law, the Hawaii
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Pennsylvania Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act, the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, asserts the complaint.
Abbott Laboratories is an American multinational medical devices
and health care company with headquarters in Abbott Park,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
Facsimile: (312) 212-5919
E-mail: katrina@lcllp.com
kyle@lcllp.com
- and -
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
BARRACK RODOS & BACINE
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0800
Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
- and -
Michael Liskow, Esq.
Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP
1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (917) 899-1765
E-mail: mliskow@calcaterrapollack.com
jpollack@calcaterrapollack.com
- and -
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
102 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Telephone: (917) 983-9321
E-mail: LFeldman@4-Justice.com
- and -
David J. George, Esq.
Brittany L. Brown, Esq.
GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite #302
Lake Worth, FL 33467
Telephone: (561) 232-6002
E-mail: DGeorge@4-Justice.com
- and -
John G. Emerson, Esq.
EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300
Houston, TX 77042
Telephone: (800) 551-8649
Facsimile: (501) 286-4659
E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com
ABBVIE INC: Consolidated Antitrust Suits Pending
------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that lawsuits are pending
against AbbVie and others generally alleging that the 2005 patent
litigation settlement involving "Niaspan" entered into between Kos
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company acquired by Abbott in 2006 and
presently a subsidiary of AbbVie) and a generic company violates
federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair and deceptive
trade practices and unjust enrichment laws.
Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees. The lawsuits pending in federal court consist
of four individual plaintiff lawsuits and two consolidated
purported class actions: one brought by Niaspan direct purchasers
and one brought by Niaspan end-payors.
The cases are pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated
pre-trial proceedings under the MDL Rules as "In re: Niaspan
Antitrust Litigation," MDL No. 2460.
In August 2019, the court certified a class of direct purchasers of
Niaspan. In June 2020 and August 2021, the court denied the
end-payors' motion to certify a class. In October 2016, the Orange
County, California District Attorney's Office filed a lawsuit on
behalf of the State of California regarding the Niaspan patent
litigation settlement in Orange County Superior Court, asserting a
claim under the unfair competition provision of the California
Business and Professions Code seeking injunctive relief,
restitution, civil penalties and attorneys' fees.
AbbVie is a global, diversified research-based biopharmaceutical
company into immunology, hematologic oncology, neuroscience,
aesthetics and eye care.
ABBVIE INC: Faces Antitrust Suit in Pennsylvania Court
------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that in August 2019,
direct purchasers of "AndroGel" filed a lawsuit captioned "King
Drug Co. of Florence, Inc., et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al.," against
AbbVie and others in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that 2006 patent
litigation settlements and related agreements by Solvay
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company Abbott acquired in February 2010
and now known as AbbVie Products LLC) with three generic companies
violated federal antitrust law, and also alleging that 2011 patent
litigation by Abbott with two generic companies regarding AndroGel
was sham litigation and the settlements of those litigations
violated federal antitrust law.
AbbVie is a global, diversified research-based biopharmaceutical
company into immunology, hematologic oncology, neuroscience,
aesthetics and eye care.
ACCUTECH SYSTEMS: Sharma Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accutech Systems
Corporation. The case is styled as Nivedita Sharma, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Accutech Systems
Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-00551-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., March 22,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Accutech -- https://www.trustasc.com/ -- delivers innovative trust
and wealth management solutions with exceptional, personalized
service to over 250 banks and wealth management companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 283-3814
Fax: (773) 496-8617
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
AHC MEDICAL: Choi Sues Over Physical Therapists' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
BONGYONG CHOI on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AHC MEDICAL SERVICES, PLLC, and ATAUL AKIM
CHOWDHURY, M.D., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01450-MKB-JRC
(E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2022) is a class action brought by the
Plaintiff to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wages and
other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.
Mr. Choi was employed as a physical therapist by the Defendants
from August 20, 2021, through December 4, 2021.
AHC Medical Services, PLLC is a New York Corporation that owns and
operates a medical office in Flushing, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
RYAN KIM LAW, P.C.
222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Telephone: (718) 573-1111
E-mail: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com
ALPINESTARS USA: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpinestars USA. The
case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Alpinestars USA, Case No. 1:22-cv-02341
(S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Alpinestars -- https://www.alpinestars.com/ -- is a manufacturer of
technical, high performance protective gear for motorcycle and auto
racing in addition to other action sports.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
ANDERSON COUNTY, TN: Accord Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Gary Accord filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled GARY ACCORD, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ANDERSON COUNTY,
TENNESSEE, et al. Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00077, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
On June 29, 2018, Plaintiff Accord was arrested by Tennessee
Highway Patrolman Paul Kilday in Cocke County, Tennessee. Kilday
prepared a complaint-affidavit on a State of Tennessee Uniform
Citation Form. The Plaintiff then was prosecuted using the Uniform
Citation Form/Affidavit of Complaint as a charging instrument. He
was charged with a DUI, which was eventually reduced to reckless
endangerment. He was sentenced to 11 months and 29 days in jail,
with a suspended sentence.
The Plaintiff filed the present case on Feb. 1, 2021 as a class
action complaint against every county in Tennessee (but no one
else). Thereafter, he filed an Amended Complaint against the same
Defendants, which asserted (in Counts I-III) several claims under
42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for various kinds of alleged violations of
the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as a
Tennessee common law claim for false light invasion of privacy (in
Count IV).
Upon motion of the Plaintiff, the Court dismissed Counts II and
III. This left remaining a single count asserting claims under
Section 1983 (as well as the state-law claim in Count IV). That
count (Count I) was styled as one for violations of the Fourth,
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and of
Tennessee Constitution Article I, Section 7.
Various Defendants then filed motions to dismiss, including the
Motion whereby Defendant Cocke County (and various other counties)
requested dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). Ultimately, during its review of some of these motions,
the Court determined that the Plaintiff had failed to establish
standing to bring a claim against any Defendant except Cocke
County. Accordingly, it ordered that all Defendants except Cocke
County be dismissed (and administratively terminated as parties)
and that the present Motion remain pending only as to Cocke
County.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 14, 2022, Judge
Eli Richardson of the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville
Division, granted Defendant Cocke County's Motion to Dismiss and
dismissed the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as Gary Accord v. Anderson County,
TN, et al., Case No. 22-5206, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit, filed on March 16, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant GARY ACCORD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Gordon Ball, Esq.
GORDON BALL, LLC
7001 Old Kent Drive
Knoxville, TN 37919
Telephone: (865) 525-7028
E-mail: gball@gordonball.com
Defendants-Appellees ANDERSON COUNTY, TN, et al., are represented
by:
Arthur F. Knight, III, Esq.
TAYLOR & KNIGHT
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 600
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 971-1701
E-mail: amber@taylorknightlaw.com
- and -
Howard Luxon Upchurch, Esq.
UPCHURCH & UPCHURCH
P.O. Box 381
Pikeville, TN 37367-0000
Telephone: (423) 447-2903
E-mail: upchurchlaw@bledsoe.net
- and -
Gary M. Prince, Esq.
Jeffrey R. Thompson, Esq.
O'NEIL, PARKER & WILLIAMSON
7610 Gleason Drive, Suite 200
Knoxville, TN 37919
Telephone: (865) 546-7190
E-mail: gprince@opw.com
jthompson@opw.com
- and -
J. Austin Stokes, Esq.
PENTECOST, GLENN & MAULDIN
162 Murray Guard Drive, Suite B
Jackson, TN 38305
Telephone: (731) 668-5995
E-mail: astokes@pgmfirm.com
- and -
Allison L. Bussell, Esq.
METROPOLITAN DEPARTMENT OF LAW
P.O. Box 196300
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 880-3759
E-mail: allison.bussell@nashville.gov
- and -
Michael Todd Schmitt, Esq.
ORTALE, KELLEY, HERBERT & CRAWFORD
330 Commerce Street, Suite 110
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 256-9999
E-mail: mschmitt@ortalekelley.com
- and -
James Exum, III, Esq.
CHAMBLISS, BAHNER & STOPHEL
605 Chestnut Street, Suite 1700
Chattanooga, TN 37450
Telephone: (423) 756-3000
E-mail: jfexum@chamblisslaw.com
- and -
Brad A. Fraser, Esq.
900 S. Gay Street, Suite 1800
Knoxville, TN 37902
Telephone: (865) 342-4904
E-mail: brad.fraser@leitnerfirm.com
- and -
David S. Wigler, Esq.
KNOX COUNTY LAW DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
400 Main Street, Suite 612
Knoxville, TN 37902
Telephone: (865) 215-2327
E-mail: david.wigler@knoxcounty.org
- and -
Jeffrey G. Jones, Esq.
WIMBERLY, LAWSON, WRIGHT, DAVES & JONES
1420 Neal Street
Suite 201, P.O. Box 655
Cookeville, TN 38503-0655
Telephone: (931) 372-9123
E-mail: jjones@wimberlylawson.com
- and -
Nicholas C. Christiansen, Esq.
HUDSON, REED & MCCREARY
16 Public Square, N.
Murfreesboro, TN 37130
Telephone: (615) 893-5522
E-mail: nchristiansen@mborolaw.com
- and -
Emmett Lee Whitwell, Esq.
SHELBY COUNTY ATTORNEY
160 N. Main Street, Suite 950
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (901) 222-2145
E-mail: lee.whitwell@shelbycountytn.gov
- and -
Benjamin Charles Allen, Esq.
SUMNER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
355 N. Belvedere Drive, Room 303
Gallatin, TN 37066
Telephone: (615) 451-6060
E-mail: ben@sumnercountytn.gov
- and -
Robert Oliver Bratcher, Esq.
STANLEY & BRATCHER
P.O. Box 568
McMinnville, TN 37111
Telephone: (931) 473-7000
E-mail: robert@stanleyandbratcher.com
- and -
Lisa M. Carson, Esq.
BUERGER, MOSELEY & CARSON
306 Public Square
Franklin, TN 37064
Telephone: (615) 794-8850
E-mail: lcarson@buergerlaw.com
ARD GROUP: Faces Blanco Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN GALICIA BLANCO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARD GROUP LLC d/b/a SLIDE BAR-B-Q,
ROBERT MELLER and ANNA MELLER, as individuals, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-01438-DG-RER (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2022) seeks to recover
damages for the Defendants' alleged egregious violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising out of
Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants' failed to pay proper
minimum and overtime wages as well as spread of hours compensation
and failed to provide accurate wage notices and wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from June 2021 until
September 2021 as a dishwasher, food preparer, and kitchen worker
while performing related miscellaneous duties.
ARD Group LLC, d/b/a SLIDE BAR-B-Q, is a barbecue restaurant
located in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
AXOS BANK: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Axos Bank. The case
is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Axos Bank, Case No. 1:22-cv-02336
(S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Axos Bank -- https://www.axosbank.com/ -- is an American federally
chartered savings and loan association and direct bank
headquartered in San Diego, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
AZTAR INDIANA: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Adams Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
AZTAR INDIANA GAMING COMPANY, LLC filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ANITA F. ADAMS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AZTAR
INDIANA GAMING COMPANY, LLC d/b/a TROPICANA EVANSVILLE, Defendant,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00143-RLY-MPB, in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana.
This class action was brought against the Defendant for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Indiana Wage Payment Statute,
and the Indiana Wage Deductions Statute by failing to compensate
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated workers appropriate
minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek, failing to properly inform them of the
required tip credit provisions prior to paying a sub-minimum direct
cash wage, and making improper deductions from their paychecks for
gaming license fees and other deductions.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a table games
dealer at a casino located at 421 NW Riverside Drive, Evansville,
Indiana from approximately March 2012 through the present.
The Defendant now requests that the Court exercise its discretion
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) to review the District
Court's February 25, 2022 Order granting Plaintiff's request for
class certification.
The question presented is: Whether this Court should permit an
appeal of the District Court's Order certifying three Rule 23
classes where the District Court (a) rejected Supreme Court
precedent that requires courts to engage in a rigorous analysis
even when such inquiry goes to the merits and (b) performed no
rigorous analysis with regard to the contradictory evidence
presented by Tropicana Evansville showing countless dissimilarities
between the class members, the existence of uninjured class
members, and an unmanageable number of individualized inquiries
that would need to be performed in order to resolve the Rule 23
claims?
The appellate case is captioned as ANITA ADAMS Plaintiff-Appellee
v. AZTAR INDIANA GAMING COMPANY, LLC d/b/a TROPICANA EVANSVILLE
Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 22-8002, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on March 11, 2022.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant AZTAR INDIANA GAMING COMPANY, LLC d/b/a
TROPICANA EVANSVILLE is represented by:
Charles B. Jellinek, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
211 North Broadway, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 259-2000
Facsimile: (314) 259-2020
E-mail: cbjellinek@bclplaw.com
BAYER US: Faces Class Action Over Mirena IUD Breast Cancer Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that pharma
giant Bayer makes and sells the birth control Mirena but does not
adequately advise women that it greatly increases their risk of
getting breast cancer, a new class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Priya Sidhu filed the class action lawsuit against Bayer
U.S. LLC Mar. 14 in a California federal court, alleging negligence
and violations of state and federal consumer laws.
She's looking to represent those who were prescribed and used
Bayer's Mirena IUD, which is inserted into a woman's uterus.
"Defendant markets and sells the products as suitable for use as
birth control, but Mirena IUDs are not suitable for that use
because they significantly increase the risk of breast cancer in
users," the class action states.
Sidhu says Bayer does note on its website that "Mirena isn't right
for everyone" and warns people to check for possible side effects.
However, "conspicuously absent" from the list of safety
considerations is any mention of the significantly increased risk
of breast cancer caused by the product.
Mirena-Type Birth Control Increases Breast Cancer Risk, Studies
Show
Sidhu says Bayer has long been aware of the increased risk of
breast cancer from using the product.
The lawsuit states that in 2010, a case-control study compared 329
women users of the product type with 708 controls of the same age.
The study showed an increased risk for breast cancer in the
population using the Mirena-type product. The lawsuit also cites
other studies from around the world that came to the same
conclusion.
Sidhu says she would not have purchased the product— or, at
minimum, would have paid significantly less for it—had Bayer
disclosed that it carried with it a significantly elevated risk of
breast cancer.
"Plaintiff and Class Members thus suffered monetary damages as a
result of Defendant's deceptive and fraudulent omissions," she
says.
She's looking to represent anyone who used Mirena nationwide plus a
California subclass and is seeking certification of the class
action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial.
Earlier this year, separate class action lawsuits were filed
against Bayer Healthcare and Unilever over allegations the
companies sold products contaminated with the chemical benzene, a
known human carcinogen, without informing consumers.
Did you know about these possible side effects of Mirena? Let us
know in the comments.
The plaintiff is represented by L. Timothy Fisher of Bursor &
Fisher, P.A.
The Bayer U.S. Class Action Lawsuit is Priya Sidhu v. Bayer U.S.
LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-01603, in the U.S. District Court Northern
District of California. [GN]
BEAUTY TREND: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beauty Trend USA Inc.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Beauty Trend USA Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02328 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Beauty Trends USA Inc. is located in New York and is part of the
Personal Care Services Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
BOYAR ASSET: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boyar Asset
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf
of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Boyar Asset
Management, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02337 (S.D.N.Y., March 22,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Boyar Asset Management -- https://www.boyarassetmanagement.com/ --
is an investment management company based out of New York
City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
BRAINSTORMPRODUCTS LLC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brainstormproducts,
LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Brainstormproducts, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02320 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
BrainStormProducts LLC -- https://brainstormproducts.com/ -- is USA
based producer of outdoor toys, kites for kids and adults,
collectible glass figurines and miniatures, outdoor decor and
more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
BREWERS RETAIL: Judge Certifies Pension Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Benefits Canada, reports that in
certifying a pension class action by Brewers Retail Inc., an
Ontario Superior Court judge denounced the Financial Services
Regulatory Authority of Ontario for defying a decision of its
predecessor, the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.
Justice Ed Morgan certified the class on Feb. 10, 2022, setting the
stage for a settlement approval hearing. In March 2021, Brewers
Retail brought a court application for certification of the class
action following five years of negotiations with the FSCO over the
company's 2008 decision to de-index its pension plan for salaried
employees that concluded in early 2019.
The agreement stated the parties would use a class action to
request court approval of a methodology to identify, compensate and
bind individuals potentially affected by the indexing issue. The
FSCO, which indicated it wouldn't participate in the court action,
confirmed it would accept Brewer's amendments for registration if
the court approved the settlement.
When the FSRA took over as regulator in June 2019, it confirmed the
FSCO's support for the settlement and its implementation. But in
October 2019, the FSRA -- without providing any rationale --
advised it would object to the settlement.
In June 2020, Brewers filed new plan amendments that rescinded all
of the indexing changes the company had implemented since 1974 and
that the FSRA had determined were non-compliant.
The FSRA wasn't mollified. In November 2020, the regulator issued a
notice of intended decision to reject the plan amendments. Brewers
responded by requesting a hearing at the Financial Services
Tribunal. It also confirmed its intention to proceed with a court
application for certification of the class action for settlement
purposes.
Over the FSRA's objections, the FST adjourned the regulatory
application to allow the court to make the first ruling on the
proposed settlement. It accepted Brewers' proposal to return to the
FST to seek its approval once the court had made its decision.
The FSRA intervened in the case, arguing that the amendments
deviated from other plans that the FSRA oversaw and from the
Pension Benefits Act, that the court didn't have jurisdiction to
determine the validity of the amendments and that the FST hearing
should proceed first.
Citing a jurisprudential history that had determined the court had
jurisdiction to decide pension-related disputes in the face of
opposition by the regulator, Morgan determined that the parties had
met the criteria for certification -- more particularly, that the
class action was the "preferable procedure" for resolving the
issues between the parties.
As the FSRA had admitted, Morgan also noted the regulator's concern
wasn't for the Brewers pensioners, who had agreed to the
settlement. Rather, the FSRA's counsel "expressed concern for the
implications of this settlement for pensioners of other companies."
It was evident, added Morgan, that the Brewers' pensioners were
only a "small cog and not the driving hub" for the FSRA.
"In taking the position that [the] FSCO's approval and the parties'
reliance thereon amounted to nothing more than discretionary advice
that can be changed at will, is itself a disregard of the class
members' interests," stated Morgan.
The court, however, couldn't decline jurisdiction on the basis
"that it should subordinate the interests of the parties before it
to that of parties other than those before it."
The FSRA is seeking leave to appeal Morgan's decision. The
regulator didn't respond to questions from Benefits Canada as the
"issue is still being litigated and before the courts." [GN]
C3.AI INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of May 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of C3.ai, Inc. (NYSE: AI) and
Rivian Automotive, Inc. (NASDAQ: RIVN). Stockholders have until the
deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.
Additional information about each case can be found at the link
provided.
C3.ai, Inc. (NYSE: AI)
Class Period: December 9, 2020 IPO; December 9, 2020 - February 15,
2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2022
The Complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the
Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) C3.ai's partnership
with Baker Hughes was deteriorating; (2) C3.ai's was employing a
flawed accounting methodology to conceal the deterioration of its
Baker Hughes partnership; (3) C3.ai faced challenges in product
adoption and significant salesforce turnover; (4) the Company
overstated, inter alia, the extent of its investment in technology,
description of its customers, its total addressable market ("TAM"),
the pace of its market growth, and the scale of alliances with its
major business partners; and (5) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
For more information on the C3.ai class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/AI
Rivian Automotive, Inc. (NASDAQ: RIVN)
Class Period: November 10, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 6, 2022
Rivian is an electric vehicle company that in 2018 unveiled its
first consumer EV's, the R1T electric pickup truck, and the R1S
electric SUV.
On November 10, 2021, Rivian offered 153 million shares to the
public through an IPO at a price of $78.00 per share for total
proceeds of $11.93 billion.
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."
Rivian's focus on its reputation for transparency and devotion to
its customers, along with Rivian's R1T and R1S, including the large
number of preorders and potential for increased demand were key
selling points to IPO investors.
Unbeknownst to investors, however, the Registration Statement's
representations were 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.
As a result, the price of the Company's shares was artificially and
materially inflated at the time of the Offering.
For more information on the Rivian class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/RIVN
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Alexandra B.
Raymond, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.comwww.bespc.com
[GN]
CARNIVAL CORP: Ruby Princess COVID Outbreak Class Action Grows
--------------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Neilson, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that as
Australia's cruise ship ban prepares to lift, the number of people
who have signed up to the Ruby Princess class action has increased
to well above 1,000.
Later this year, Carnival and Princess Cruise Lines will face court
over their handling of a coronavirus outbreak on the Ruby Princess
that resulted in deaths and potential "long-COVID" symptoms for at
least 30 per cent of its passengers.
Shine Lawyers class actions practice leader Vicky Antzoulatos said
the action filed in July 2020 had grown to 1,100 members. For the
passengers who are feeling the long-term coronavirus effects of
being stuck onboard, Ms Antzoulatos said the prognosis remains
uncertain, which is a "very bleak outlook for many to live with".
In April, the federal government will officially reopen the cruise
ship industry, in circumstances where "Carnival is still vigorously
defending this class action".
"Carnival is getting on with their business, however, the lives of
many passengers and their loved ones will never be the same," Ms
Antzoulatos said.
"These are people that put their trust in Carnival to keep them
safe. The very least these passengers deserve is for Carnival to
compensate them and their loved ones for injuries many of them will
never recover from as a result of contracting COVID."
Shine Lawyers will allege that the defendants broke Australian
consumer laws by breaching consumer guarantees when they engaged in
conduct that was misleading and deceptive. The firm also alleges
that the operators of the cruise ship were negligent and failed a
duty of care to provide passengers with a safe environment.
In the last two years, an inquiry was held and a report released
into the Ruby Princess COVID-19 disaster. In August 2020, then-NSW
premier Gladys Berejiklian said the tragedy "should and never will
happen again" in the state.
The inquiry commissioned by the NSW government into the Ruby
Princess laid blame on NSW health officials, who made "inexcusable,
inexplicable" mistakes. [GN]
CBH INTERNATIONAL: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CBH International,
LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. CBH International, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02343 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
CBH International -- https://www.cbhintl.com/ -- is located in
Beverly Hills, California and is part of the Health and Personal
Care Stores Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
CERENCE INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Cerence, Inc. (NASDAQ:
CRNC), Affirm Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: AFRM), Cabaletta Bio, Inc.
(NASDAQ: CABA), and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (NASDAQ: ERIC).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.
Cerence, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRNC)
Class Period: February 8, 2021 - February 4, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 26, 2022
Cerence is a Burlington, Massachusetts-based company that focuses
on building artificial intelligence-powered virtual assistants
primarily for the automotive market. Despite the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic, supply-chain issues, and the semiconductor shortage,
which reduced the global production of automobiles, Cerence
continued to report growing revenues and strong demand for software
licenses for its products. Cerence even touted its "visibility"
into demand for its products by providing revenue guidance for
fiscal year 2024, guidance that was a focus of securities analysts
and that the Company raised significantly during the Class Period.
The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects in violation of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that
the global semiconductor shortage had a materially negative impact
on demand for Cerence's software licenses; (2) that Defendants
masked the impact of the semiconductor shortage on demand for the
Company's software licenses by pulling forward sales; and (3) that,
as a result of the above, Defendants' statements about Cerence's
business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
The truth began to emerge during Cerence's earnings call on
November 22, 2021 for the fiscal fourth quarter of 2021 ended on
September 30, 2021, causing Cerence's stock price to fall and
investors to suffer substantial losses. On that call, Cerence
announced revenue guidance for fiscal year 2022 that was well below
analysts' expectations. In response to this revelation, Cerence's
stock price fell more than 20 percent from a closing price of
$104.06 the prior trading day, to a close of $82.59 on November 22,
2021. The Company's stock price continued to fall another 5% the
following day to close at $78.27 on November 23, 2021.
Then, approximately three weeks later, Cerence's Chief Executive
Officer ("CEO") Sanjay Dhawan abruptly resigned. On this news,
Cerence's stock price fell an additional 11% from a closing price
of $78.08 on December 14, 2021 to a closing price of $69.20 on
December 15, 2021.
Finally, on February 7, 2022, the Company announced results for its
fiscal first quarter of 2022 ended on December 31, 2021 and shocked
the market with three disclosures. First, the Company announced
that Chief Financial Officer Mark Gallenberger would be retiring,
effective March 11, 2022. Next, during its earnings conference
call, new CEO Stefan Ortmanns announced he had conducted a review
of each of the Cerence business units' plans, forecasts, and
assumptions, and determined the "conversion from bookings to
revenue will take longer than expected." As a result, Cerence was
forced to lower its fiscal year 2022 guidance, only a few months
after providing disappointing guidance for the same period.
Finally, Cerence completely withdrew the closely watched fiscal
year 2024 guidance. On this news, Cerence's stock price fell an
additional 30%, from a closing price of $63.58 on the prior trading
day of February 4, 2022, to close at $43.61 on February 7, 2022.
For more information on the Cerence class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CRNC
Affirm Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: AFRM)
Class Period: February 10, 2022 after 1:15pm
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 29, 2022
Affirm purports to be a "next generation platform for digital and
mobile-first commerce." Through its platform, the Company offers
"buy now, pay later" or "BNPL" services to consumers. Affirm
represents itself "a more flexible and transparent alternative to
credit cards."
At approximately 1:15 p.m. on February 10, 2022, Affirm issued a
Tweet from its official account in which the Company disclosed
certain metrics from its second quarter 2022 financial results. The
Tweet, which was published prior to the Company's planned release
of its financial results, portrayed a highly successful quarter,
which included an increase in revenue of 77%. This caused Affirm's
share price to spike nearly 10% in intra-day trading.
The Tweet was materially misleading, in that it omitted to disclose
the full details of Affirm's second quarter financial results.
Indeed, the Company deleted the Tweet and released its full second
quarter financial results ahead of schedule. The full financial
results were lackluster - with the Company posting a loss of $0.57
per share, compared with analyst expectations of $0.37 per share.
On this news, Affirm's share price plummeted from an intra-day high
of $83.57 per share on February 10, 2022, to close at $58.68 per
share, or approximately 32%.
For more information on the Affirm class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/AFRM
Cabaletta Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: CABA)
Class Period: October 24, 2019; October 24, 2019 - December 13,
2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 29, 2022
According to the lawsuit, the IPO offering documents and defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) top-line data of the Phase 1
Clinical Trial indicated that DSG3-CAART had, among other things,
worsened certain participants' disease activity scores and
necessitated additional systemic medication to improve disease
activity after DSG3-CAART infusion; (2) accordingly, DSG3-CAART was
not as effective as the Company had represented to investors; (3)
therefore, the Company had overstated DSG3-CAART's clinical and/or
commercial prospects; and (4) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.
For more information on the Cabaletta class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CABA
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (NASDAQ: ERIC)
Class Period: April 27, 2017 - February 25, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 2, 2022
The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading
statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) Ericsson overstated
the extent to which it had reformed its business practices to
eliminate the use of bribes to secure business in foreign
countries; (2) Ericsson had paid bribes to the terrorist group the
Islamic State in Iraq and Syria ("ISIS" or the "Islamic State") to
gain access to certain transport routes in Iraq; (3) accordingly,
the Company's revenues derived from its operations in Iraq were, in
at least substantial part, derived from unlawful conduct and thus
unsustainable; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On February 15, 2022, during intraday trading hours, Ericsson
issued a press release disclosing media inquiries into its business
dealings in Iraq. That press release assured investors of the
Company's "transparency" regarding these inquiries, while vaguely
alluding to having undertaken its own investigative and compliance
efforts.
Then, on February 16, 2022, Ericsson's Chief Executive Officer
("CEO") told a Swedish newspaper that the Company may have made
payments to ISIS to gain access to certain transport routes in
Iraq, noting that the Company had identified "unusual expenses
dating back to 2018" but had not yet determined the final recipient
of the funds for those expenses, although Defendants could "see
that it disappeared[,]" and that Ericsson has spent "considerable
resources trying to understand this as best we can."
Following these disclosures, Ericsson's American Depositary Share
("ADS") price fell $1.44 per ADS, or 11.57%, to close at $11.01 per
ADS on February 16, 2022.
Finally, on Sunday, February 27, 2022, the International Consortium
of Investigative Journalists ("ICIJ") published a report on
Ericsson's alleged dealings with ISIS in Iraq, citing a leaked
internal investigation that revealed that Ericsson had reportedly
made "tens of millions of dollars in suspicious payments" over
nearly a decade to keep its business in the country.
The ICIJ report also alleged that "a spreadsheet lists company
probes into possible bribery, money laundering and embezzlement by
employees in Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Brazil, China, Croatia,
Libya, Morocco, the United States and South Africa[,]" which "have
not been previously disclosed."
On this news, Ericsson's ADS price fell $0.84 per ADS, or 8.3%,
from its closing price on February 25, 2022, to close at $9.28 per
ADS on February 28, 2022, the next trading day.
For more information on the Ericsson class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ERIC
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Alexandra B.
Raymond, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.comwww.bespc.com
[GN]
CHARLES KOMAR & SONS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charles Komar & Sons,
Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Charles Komar & Sons, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02331 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Charles Komar & Sons, Inc. -- https://www.komarbrands.com/ -- is a
global leader in the design, sourcing, manufacturing and
distribution of apparel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
CHIP COOKIE: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chip Cookie Corp. The
case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Chip
Cookie Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-01530-WFK-JRC (E.D.N.Y., March 21,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Chip Cookie -- https://www.chipcitycookies.com/ -- offers sweet
seasonal specials from the best cookie shop in NYC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
CIOX HEALTH: Can Litigate Class Action in Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Ciox Health
LLC and ProHealth Care Inc. can litigate a proposed class action
over allegedly unlawful charges for electronic medical records in
federal court, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit on March 16 rejected arguments that the local controversy
exception didn't apply to the case.
It was the first time the Seventh Circuit has weighed in on the
contours of the exception to federal court jurisdiction under the
Class Action Fairness Act.
The local controversy exception requires a federal district court
to send a removed lawsuit back to state court where certain
criteria are met. [GN]
COGNOSPHERE LLC: Faces A.T. Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
A.T., a minor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COGNOSPHERE, LLC d/b/a/ HOYOVERSE and MIHOYO
CO., LTD., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01761-JLS-JPR is a putative
class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated who disaffirm their entire contract with
the Defendant and seek restitution in the amount already paid to
Defendant on their now-void contracts pursuant to the California
Business & Professional Code.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the putative class
have suffered injury due to deceptive and misleading trade
practices by Defendant in marketing and selling in-game items and
in-game currency for its popular video game, Genshin Impact (GI).
These items and in-game currency are frequently purchased by minors
who are unable to exercise their unrestricted rights under state
laws to rescind contracts into which they entered with Defendant,
says the suit.
Allegedly, GI is monetized through "gacha" game mechanics where
players can obtain new characters, weapons, and other resources. A
"gacha" game is a video game that implements a gacha (toy vending
machine) mechanic. Put differently, gacha games induce players to
spend in-game currency to receive a random virtual item. The
in-game currency can be gained by game play, or by purchasing it
from the game publisher using real money. Most "gacha" games are
free-to-play (F2P) mobile games, and the "gacha" entices players to
spend real-world money.
The Plaintiff, under his own name and using his own money, made
multiple in-game purchases in GI.
Cognosphere, LLC is a fully owned subsidiary of miHoYo Co., Ltd., a
Chinese video game developer based in Shanghai, China.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
CONOCOPHILLIPS: Faces Shareholder Suit in S.D. Tex.
---------------------------------------------------
ConocoPhillips disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that it is facing a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas alleging that the company and its
officers made materially false and misleading statements regarding
its business and operations.
In July 2021, a federal securities class action was filed against
Concho Resources Inc., certain of Concho's officers, and
ConocoPhillips as Concho's successor.
On October 21, 2021, the court issued an order appointing Utah
Retirement Systems and the Construction Laborers Pension Trust for
Southern California as lead plaintiffs.
On January 7, 2022, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint alleging that Concho made materially false and misleading
statements regarding its business and operations in violation of
the federal securities laws and seeking unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, equitable/injunctive relief, and such other
relief that may be deemed appropriate.
ConocoPhillips is an exploration and production company based in
Texas. On January 15, 2021, it completed the acquisition of Concho
Resources Inc. (Concho), an independent oil and gas exploration and
production company with operations in New Mexico and West Texas
focused on the Permian Basin.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Vargas Consumer Suit Goes to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DIANA VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION and DOES
1 through 10, Case No. 37-2022-00003327-CU-BT-CTL, was removed from
the Superior Court in the State of California for the County of San
Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California on March 21, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00379-L-DEB to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unjust
enrichment/quasi contract, negligent misrepresentation/omission,
breach of express warranty, strict product liability, and
violations of the Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising
Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Costco Wholesale Corporation is an operator of a chain of
membership-only big-box retail stores, with its principal place of
business in Washington. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Renee D. Wasserman, Esq.
Merri A. Baldwin, Esq.
Alecia E. Cotton, Esq.
Emily A. Wieser, Esq.
ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL
311 California Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 956-2828
Facsimile: (415) 956-6457
E-mail: rwasserman@rjo.com
mbaldwin@rjo.com
acotton@rjo.com
ewieser@rjo.com
CVS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Sale of Homeopathic Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Page, writing for Law Street, reports that on March 15 a case
was removed from California state court to the Northern District of
California. The case was filed by Joyce Benton, Melissa Greco,
Anthony Swetala, and Ralph Milan on behalf of a class action
against CVS Health Corporation and CVS Pharmacy Inc. The lawsuit
seeks to block CVS from the sale of homeopathic products that are
labelled as drugs.
The complaint explained that homeopathy is an alternative medical
practice based on a theory that an exposure to a small amount of a
substance that causes symptoms in a healthy person can be used in
diluted form to treat symptoms and illness. The plaintiffs note
that there has been little to no scientific trials regarding the
efficacy of these treatments and that many of the claims are
considered implausible by the greater medical community.
These products, per the complaint, are specifically included in the
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act's Section 301. According to the filing,
"A nonprescription (i.e., OTC) drug is misbranded if it has not
been approved by FDA as being safe and effective, or if it does not
comply with any of the previously approved monographs for OTC
drugs. 21 U.S.C. Sec. 352(ee). 14 An OTC monograph is a rule book
for each therapeutic category establishing conditions, such as
active ingredients, uses (indications), doses, labeling, and
testing, under which an OTC drug is generally recognized as safe
and effective ("GRAS/E") and can be marketed without a new drug
application ("NDA") and FDA pre-market approval."
The plaintiffs accuse the defendants of selling homeopathic
compounds that are labeled as being drugs (and not as nutritional
supplements). The compounds are also labeled as being for the
treatment of conditions such as skin tags. The plaintiff holds that
the labeling and choice to sell in the pharmacy department
encourages consumers to think the product meets efficacy and use
circumstances as regular medications and can cause consumers to
chose a homeopathic compound instead of a medication.
Plaintiffs are suing for unfair competition and unlawful business
practices under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq. and
seeks an injunction to prevent further sale of homeopathic
compounds as currently labeled and marketed. Plaintiffs are
represented by Vozzolo LLC. Defendants are represented by Norton
Rose Fulbright. [GN]
DECATHLON USA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Decathlon USA LLC.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Decathlon USA LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02319 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Decathlon -- https://www.decathlon.com/ -- is one of the world's
largest sporting goods designers, manufacturers, and retailers with
a mission to make sports more accessible for all.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
DIAZ AND ASSOCIATES: Rastelli Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diaz and Associates,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Marco Rastelli, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Diaz and Associates,
Inc., Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 8:22-cv-00430-JVS-ADS
(C.D. Cal., March 21, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Diaz & Associates, Inc. -- http://diazandassociates.us/--
purchases portfolios of charged-off consumer receivables.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George Thomas Martin, III, Esq.
Nicholas J Bontrager, Esq.
MARTIN AND BONTRAGER, APC
6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 960
Los Angeles, CA 90028
Phone: (323) 940-1700
Fax: (323) 328-8095
Email: tom@mblawapc.com
nick@mblawapc.com
DIVINE ASSET: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Divine Asset
Management LLC. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Divine Asset
Management LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02302 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Divine Asset Management -- https://www.divineassetmgt.com/ -- is a
full service, holistic, financial firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
DSIL INVESTMENT: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DSIL Investment
Services LLC. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. DSIL Investment
Services LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02303 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
DSIL Investment Services LLC -- http://www.dsilcapitalinc.com/--
operates as a brokerage firm. The Company buys and sells securities
such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other investment
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
E.I. DU PONT: Court Refuses to Certify Nationwide PFAS Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Ohioans
interested in a class action lawsuit over what's in their
bloodstream should take note of a recent federal court decision.
Judge Edmund Sargus certified a class of citizens of Ohio,
rejecting plaintiffs' lawyers' ambitious attempt to include just
about all Americans in a class, on March 7. The case concerns
chemicals known as PFAS, which are used in firefighting foam and
were used in products like non-stick cookware.
PFAS do not leave the human body, leading to the nickname "forever
chemicals."
Sargus' ruling certifies a class of Ohio citizens with at least
0.05 parts per trillion of PFAS in their blood. He turned down the
chance to certify a nationwide class -- "the most ambitious class
imaginable," as the defendants put it.
DuPont, 3M and others opposed nationwide class certification in the
case, complaining the proposed class would include about 330
million people exposed to any of the 5,000 distinct chemicals in
the PFAS family.
A research project set up by DuPont to settle Ohio and West
Virginia contamination claims earlier this century showed probable
links to six diseases, including kidney and testicular cancers, but
the epidemiology used has been called less than conclusive.
The Environmental Protection Agency has issued a health advisory
for water with 70 parts per trillion, but has not issued a formal
maximum contaminant level.
States have, though, that are far below 70 ppt. Some of them have
also hired private lawyers on contingency fees to sue 3M, DuPont
and others.
Plaintiff Kevin Hardwick's lawyers have asked the court for "the
establishment of an independent panel of scientists" who would be
"jointly selected by the parties" and funded by defendants. The
panel would research alleged health effects of PFAS and report
their findings, which would be "definitive and binding on all the
parties," the original complaint said.
Hardwick, a firefighter, is represented by lawyers at Taft
Stettinius in Columbus; Douglas and London in New York; and Levin
Papantonio in Pensacola, Fla.
PFAS are still required by the government for firefighting foam on
its military bases, despite litigation like the Hardwick class
action and a federal multidistrict litigation proceeding in South
Carolina. [GN]
ECHO DESIGN GROUP: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Echo Design
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. The Echo Design Group,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02326 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Echo -- https://echonewyork.com/ -- is an industry leader in the
design, marketing and distribution of home and fashion
accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
ELECTRIC & ROSE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Electric & Rose LLC.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Electric & Rose LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02330 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Electric & Rose -- https://electricandrose.com/ -- offers easy
breezy athletic clothes and loungewear that are all designed and
handmade in Los Angeles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
FAT BRANDS: Faces Matthews Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT J. MATTHEWS, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly Situated v. FAT BRANDS INC., ANDREW WIEDERHORN, RON ROE,
REBECCA HERSHINGER, and KEN KUICK, Case No. 2:22-cv-01820-MCS-RAO
(C.D. Cal., March 18, 2022) is a class action on behalf of persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded FAT
Brands securities between December 4, 2017 and February 18, 2022
seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
On December 4, 2017, FAT Brands filed with the SEC its quarterly
report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 24, 2017 which
was signed by Defendants Wiederhorn and Roe. Attached to the 3Q17
Report were certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 signed by Defendants Andrew Wiederhorn and Roe attesting to
the accuracy of financial 14 reporting, the disclosure of any
material changes to the Company's internal control over financial
reporting and the disclosure of all fraud, says the suit.
The 3Q17 Report allegedly neglected to state Defendant Wiederhorn
and/or his son and current FAT Brands Chief Operating Officer
("COO”), Thayer Wiederhorn, had engaged in transactions "for no
legitimate corporate purpose" connected to the Company but stated
the following, in pertinent part, regarding the debt, loans, and
financing concerning Defendant Wiederhorn:
"On June 21, 2017, the debt was purchased by a limited
partnership in which Andrew Wiederhorn, the CEO of the Company,
is a general partner. Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. has agreed
to indemnify FAT Brands Inc. and Subsidiaries from costs and
liabilities which may arise from this matter."
On February 22, 2022 1 , before trading hours, the Company filed
with the SEC a Form 8-K, in which the Company announced the
following, in relevant part, regarding the investigation:
"the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of
California and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
informed the Company in December 2021 that they have opened
investigations relating to the Company and our Chief Executive
Officer, Andrew Wiederhorn, and are formally seeking documents
and materials concerning, among other things, the Company's
December 2020 merger with Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc.,
transactions between these entities and Mr. Wiederhorn, and
compensation, extensions of credit and other benefits or
payments received by Mr. Wiederhorn or his family."
On this news FAT Brands' warrants' price fell $2.41, or 35%, to 13
close at $4.47 per warrant on February 22, 2022, on unusually heavy
trading volume, damaging investors.
As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the 16 decline in the market value of the Company's securities,
Plaintiff and other Class 17 members have suffered significant
losses and damages.
The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and was 6 damaged upon the
revelation of the alleged corrective disclosure.
FAT Brands purports to be a franchising company which acquires,
develops, and markets quick-service, fast casual, and casual dining
restaurant concepts including the brands of: Fatburger, Johnny
Rockets, Twin Peaks, Fazoli's, Buffalo's Cafe, Buffalo's Express,
Ponderosa Steakhouse, Bonanza Steakhouse, Hurricane Grill & Wings,
Yalla Mediterranean, and Elevation Burger. The Individual
Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
FGX INTERNATIONAL: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FGX International,
Inc. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. FGX International, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-02269 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
FGX International -- http://www.fgxi.com/-- an EssilorLuxottica
company, is a leading global designer and marketer of
non-prescription glasses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
FIAT CHRYSLER: Olsen Files Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles. The case is styled as Scott A. Olsen, an individual,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles (FCA), Case No. 3:22-cv-00368-TWR-NLS (S.D.
Cal., March 21, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. -- https://fcagroup-me.com/ -- was
an Italian-American multinational corporation primarily known as a
manufacturer of automobiles, commercial vehicles, auto parts and
production systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anne Marie Murphy, Esq.
Niall McCarthy, Esq.
Veena Bhatia, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: (650) 697-6000
Fax: (650) 697-0577
Email: amurphy@cpmlegal.com
nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com
vbhatia@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Jeffrey Garret Mudd, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 3088
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Phone: (310) 392-7542
Email: jmudd@cpmlegal.com
FREEWAY INSURANCE: Whittaker Files TCPA Suit in Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Freeway Insurance Services
America LLC. The case is captioned as Brenda Whittaker,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Freeway Insurance Services America LLC, an Illinois limited
liability company, Case No. 3:22-cv-08042-DGC (D. Ariz., March 16,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for restrictions of use of telephone
equipment.
Freeway Insurance Services, Inc. provides insurance services. The
Company offers auto, commercial vehicle, homeowners, renters,
business, motorcycle, motorhome, watercraft, snowmobile, health,
landlord, theft, and life insurance services. Freeway Insurance
Services serves customers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Penny L. Koepke, Esq.
MAXWELL & MORGAN PC
Pierpont Commerce Center
4854 E Baseline Rd., Ste. 104
Mesa, AZ 85206
Telephone: (480) 833-1001
Facsimile: (480) 969-8267
E-mail: pkoepke@hoalaw.biz
- and -
Taylor True Smith, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO LLC
3900 E Mexico Ave., Ste. 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 907-7628
Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
E-mail: tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com
FRESH MARKET: Ramsey Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
CASSANDRA RAMSEY, Individually, and on behalf of other similarly
situated current v. THE FRESH MARKET, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00031
(E.D. Tenn., March 18, 2022) is brought against the Defendant as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated.
The Defendant allegedly violated the FLSA by failing to pay
Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all hours worked over 40
per week within weekly pay periods during all times material at one
and one-half their regular hourly rate of pay, as required by the
FLSA.
Plaintiff Cassandra Ramsey was employed by Defendant as an
hourly-paid employee at all times material to this collective
action.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the
following similarly situated persons:
"All hourly-paid employees who worked for Defendant within the
state of Tennessee for at least one weekly pay period consisting of
at least 40 hours during the three years preceding the filing of
this Complaint, up to and including the present."
The Fresh Market is an American chain of gourmet supermarkets based
in Greensboro, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
GONG CHA TEA: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gong Cha Tea, LLC.
The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Gong Cha Tea, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01529 (E.D.N.Y., March 21, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gong Cha -- https://gongchausa.com/ -- is an international beverage
franchise specializing in freshly prepared bubble tea.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
HALSBROOK INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Halsbrook, Inc. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Halsbrook, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02332 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Halsbrook -- https://www.halsbrook.com/ -- is a luxury fashion
destination with a signature, personalized approach to online
shopping.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
HARDY WAY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hardy Way, LLC. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Hardy Way, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02329
(S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hardy Way LLC is located in Birmingham, Alabama and is part of the
Other Financial Investment Activities Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
HEIDE WASHINGTON: Robinson Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heidi Washington, et
al. The case is styled as James E. Robinson, on behalf of himself
and all others persons similarly situated within the MDOC v. Heidi
E. Washington, named as Heidi Washington, Director; Jeremy Bush,
Deputy Director; Norma Killough, Administrative Assistant; Melinda
Braman Warden; Steven Card, Facility Manager; Mirela Kecalovic,
Mail Room Staff; N. Lake, Grievance Coordinator; J. Vanbeek, Unit
Counselor C-Unit, also named as J. Van Beek, Case No.
1:22-cv-00262-SJB (W.D. Mich., March 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Heidi E. Washington -- https://www.michigan.gov/corrections/ -- has
served as the director of the Michigan Department of Corrections
since July 2015.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
HOME DEPOT: Chiarito Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KENNETH CHIARITO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 22CV394402, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa
Clara to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on March 21, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-01796 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 unpaid overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, failure
to provide meal period, failure to provide rest period,
non-compliant wage statements and failure to maintain accurate
payroll records, failure to timely pay wages during employment,
unreimbursed business-related expenses, civil penalties, and
unlawful business practices.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is a home improvement retailer, with its
principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Evan R. Moses, Esq.
Aaron H. Cole, Esq.
Melis Atalay, Esq.
Omar M. Aniff, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com
aaron.cole@ogletree.com
melis.atalay@ogletree.com
omar.aniff@ogletreedeakins.com
HOST INT'L: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert Briefing Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRA LEWIS and MARLENE
MENDOZA, v. HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC. and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00075-JAK-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order approving in part the
joint stipulation to continue class certification briefing schedule
and request for ruling on motion to dismiss as follows:
Event Current Continued
Deadline Deadline
-- Last day to file motion July 25, 2022 Sept. 26, 2022
for class certification:
-- Response to motion for Aug. 22, 2022 Oct. 24, 2022
class certification:
-- Reply to motion for Sept. 6, 2022 Nov. 7, 2022
class certification:
-- Hearing on motion for Sept. 26, 2022 Nov. 21, 2022
class certification:
-- Last day to participate Nov. 9, 2022 Jan. 11, 2023
in a settlement
conference/mediation:
-- Last day to file notice Nov. 11, 2022 Jan. 13, 2023
of settlement/joint
report re settlement:
-- Post Mediation Status Nov. 21, 2022 Jan. 23, 2023
Conference:
Host International provides catering services to travelers.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tx04MH at no extra charge.[CC]
HOUSE FOODS AMERICA: Zuniga FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Irving Carlos Zuniga, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. House Foods America Corporation,
House Foods Holding USA, Inc., Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 30-02021-01233040-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior
Court of CA for the County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on March 9, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-00372-CJC-JDE to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
House Foods -- https://www.house-foods.com/ -- offers wholesome and
delicious tofu products that bring families together and create
inspiration in the kitchen.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Malalai F. Anbari, Esq.
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC
8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500
Beverly Hills, CA 902117
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: malalai@tomorrowlaw.com
david@tomorrowlaw.com
- and -
Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
Todd M Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC
21550 Oxnard Street Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: abacon@toddflaw.com
tfriedman@toddflaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Clint D. Robison, Esq.
Michael Isaac Kessler, Esq.
O'HAGAN MEYER LLP
21550 Oxnard Street Suite 1050
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (949) 942-8500
Fax: (949) 942-8510
Email: crobison@ohaganmeyer.com
MKessler@ohaganmeyer.com
HYATT CORP: Hartstein Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Karen Hartstein filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled KAREN HARTSTEIN v. HYATT
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-04874-DSF-JPR, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.
The lawsuit was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on June 1, 2020.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay all wages
upon discharge or layoff, and failed to furnish accurate, itemized
wage statements, as required by the Private Attorneys General Act,
California Labor Code.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 10, 2021, the Hon.
Judge Dale S. Fischer entered an order granting Hartstein's motion
for class certification.
On November 15, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment as to all claims and causes of action.
On February 14, 2022, Judge Fischer granted Defendant's motion for
summary judgment and denied Hartstein's motion for partial summary
judgment. Judgment was also entered stating that Plaintiffs take
nothing, the action will be dismissed with prejudice, and the
Defendant is to recover costs of suit pursuant to a bill of costs
filed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. section 1920.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as Karen Hartstein v. Hyatt
Corporation, Case No. 22-55276, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 16, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Karen Hartstein Mediation Questionnaire was due on
March 23, 2022;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by April 14, 2022;
-- Transcript is due on May 16, 2022;
-- Appellant Karen Hartstein opening brief is due on June 23,
2022;
-- Appellee Hyatt Corporation answering brief is due on July 25,
2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant KAREN HARTSTEIN, in her representative capacity
and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is
represented by:
Eileen Goldsmith, Esq.
Michael Rubin, Esq.
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 421-7151
- and -
Jill Jessica Parker, Esq.
BLACKSTONE LAW, APC
8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 622-4278
Defendant-Appellee HYATT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation doing
business in California, is represented by:
Michael Afar, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
2029 Century Park, E, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 207-9301
E-mail: mafar@seyfarth.com
- and -
Holger Besch, Esq.
Brian Patrick Long, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 270-9624
INTERNATIONAL MARINE: Chandler Labor Suit Goes to W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALPHONSA CHANDLER, NICHOLAS GORE, BRENT MERITY, and
ERIC VAUGHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INTERNATIONAL MARINE AND INDUSTRIAL APPLICATORS, LLC,
Case No. 22-2-02546-8 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of Washington for the County of King to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington on March 22, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-00339 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated workers overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
International Marine and Industrial Applicators, LLC is a provider
of ship surface preparation services based in Virginia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Melissa Mordy, Esq.
Kate Tylee Herz, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
929 180th Avenue, Suite 1500
Bellevue, WA 98004-4786
Telephone: (425) 646-6100
Facsimile: (425) 646-6199
E-mail: missymordy@dwt.com
katetyleeherz@dwt.com
- and –
Katie Loberstein, Esq.
Scott Prange, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: katieloberstein@dwt.com
scottprange@dwt.com
JUUL LABS: Alexander Central Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER 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-01836 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 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.
Alexander Central School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 3314 Buffalo Street in Alexander, 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: Alpine Union Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads in Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALPINE UNION 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-01779 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 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.
Alpine Union School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 2001 Tavern Road in Alpine, 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
JUUL LABS: Basin School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
---------------------------------------------------------------
BASIN 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-01824-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 23, 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.
Basin School District is a unified school district with its offices
located at 100 Centerville Road in Idaho City, 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: Caro Community Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARO COMMUNITY 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-01825 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 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.
Caro Community Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 301 North Hooper Street in Caro, 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, Au Gres-Sims Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
AU GRES-SIMS 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-01827 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 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.
Au Gres-Sims School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 310 South Court Street in Au Gres, 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, Unified School Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ANTIGO, 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-01774 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 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.
Unified School District of Antigo is a unified school district with
its offices located at 120 South Dorr Street in Antigo, Wisconsin.
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: Chandler Suit Moved From D. Arizona to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHANDLER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM
BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No.
2:22-cv-00355, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on March 21, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-01794-WHO to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Arizona Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by targeting
youth in their e-cigarette campaigns and creating a youth
e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis in Arizona.
Chandler Unified School District is a public school district
located in Maricopa County, Arizona.
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:
Joseph C. Tann, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH C. TANN, PLLC
7735 N. Seventy-Eighth Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Telephone: (602) 432-4241
E-mail: josephtann@josephtann.com
- and –
Ron Kilgard, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: (602) 248-0088
E-mail: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com
- and –
Lynn Sarko, Esq.
Derek Loeser, Esq.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Dean Kawamoto, Esq.
Felicia Craick, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com
fcraick@kellerrohrback.com
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Clark County Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLARK 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-01775 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 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.
Clark County School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 43 West 2nd South in Dubois, 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 Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Canton Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
CANTON 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-01833 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 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.
Canton Central School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 99 State Street in Canton, 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: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Bartholomew Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
BARTHOLOMEW CONSOLIDATED 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-01798 (N.D. Cal., March 22,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of the 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.
Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation is a public school
district with its offices located Central Avenue in Columbus,
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: Faces Benzie County Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
BENZIE COUNTY CENTRAL 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-01823 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 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.
Benzie County Central Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 9300 Homestead Road in Benzonia, 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: Faces Evart Public Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
EVART 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-01780 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 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.
Evart Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 321 North Hemlock Street in Evart, 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: Faces Lanesville School Suit Over E-Cigarette Crisis
---------------------------------------------------------------
LANESVILLE 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-01811 (N.D. Cal., March 22,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of the 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.
Lanesville Community School Corporation is a public school district
with its offices located on Crestview Avenue in Lanesville,
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: Faces RSU-2 Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
-----------------------------------------------------------
RSU-2, 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-01782 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 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.
RSU-2 is a unified school district with its offices located at 7
Reed Street in Hallowell, Maine.
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: Frankton-Lapel Sues Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKTON-LAPEL COMMUNITY 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-01807 (N.D. Cal., March 22, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the 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.
Frankton-Lapel Community Schools is a public school district with
its offices located in Anderson, 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: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Cheektowaga-Maryvale Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHEEKTOWAGA-MARYVALE 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-01786 (N.D. Cal.,
March 21, 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.
Cheektowaga-Maryvale Union Free School District is a unified school
district with its offices located at 1050 Maryvale Drive in
Cheektowaga, 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: Memphis Community Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MEMPHIS COMMUNITY 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-01781 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 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.
Memphis Community Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 34110 Bordman Road in Memphis, 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: Monroe 2-Orleans Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
MONROE 2-ORLEANS BOCES, 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-01835 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 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.
Monroe 2-Orleans BOCES is a public regional education services
agency, with its offices located at 3599 Big Ridge Road in
Spencerport, 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: Plymouth Community Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
------------------------------------------------------------------
PLYMOUTH 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-01802 (N.D. Cal., March 22, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the 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.
Plymouth Community School Corporation is a public school district
with its offices located on Berkley Street in Plymouth, 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: Potlatch School Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Idaho
----------------------------------------------------------------
POTLATCH 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-01776 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 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.
Potlatch School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 635 Pine Street in Potlatch, 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: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Lake Ridge Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAKE RIDGE NEW TECH 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-01801 (N.D. Cal., March 22, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the 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.
Lake Ridge New Tech Schools is a public school corporation with its
offices located on West Ridge Road in Gary, 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: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Southwest Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTHWEST 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-01820 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the 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.
Southwest School Corporation is a public school district with its
offices located on North Section Street in Sullivan, 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: Roscommon Area Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROSCOMMON AREA 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-01822 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 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.
Roscommon Area Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 299H West Sunset Drive in Roscommon, 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: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Mishawaka Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
SCHOOL CITY OF MISHAWAKA, 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-01814 (N.D. Cal., March 22, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the 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.
School City of Mishawaka is a public school district with its
offices located in Mishawaka, 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: Wasatch County Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
----------------------------------------------------------------
WASATCH 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-01787 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 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.
Wasatch County School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 101 East 200 North in Heber 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: West Valley Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
--------------------------------------------------------------
WEST 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-01784 (N.D. Cal., March 21, 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 Valley Central School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 5359 School Street in West Valley, 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
KROGER CO: Cochran Suit Removed to D. Kansas
--------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ricky Cochran, Alain Berrebi, Jaramey Stobbe,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Kroger Co., Accellion, Inc., Defendants; Alexander Buck, Movant;
Case No. 5:21-cv-01887-EJD, was transferred from the the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas on March 21, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:22-mc-00102-JWB-GEB to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Civil Miscellaneous Case.
The Kroger Company, or simply Kroger --
https://www.thekrogerco.com/ -- is an American retail company that
operates supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout the
United States.[BN]
The Movant is represented by:
Jeremy M. Suhr, Esq.
BOULWARE LAW, LLC
1600 Genessee Street, Suite 416
Kansas City, MO 64102
Phone: (816) 492-2826
Fax: (816) 492-2826
Email: jeremy@boulware-law.com
L3HARRIS TECH: Faces Stengl Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT J. STENGL, DANIEL WILL, RONALD F. KOSEWICZ, GARY K. COLLEY,
LESLIE D. DIAZ, AMAYA JOHNSON, WILLIAM A. MCKINLEY and JOHN
KARIPAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF L3HARRIS
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No.
6:22-cv-00572-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla., March 18, 2022) is a class action
brought pursuant the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 against the L3Harris Plan's fiduciaries, which include
L3Harris Technologies, Inc., the Board of Directors of L3Harris
Technologies, Inc., and the Investment Committee L3Harris
Technologies, Inc. and its members during the Class Period for
breaches of their fiduciary duties.
On November 22, 2021, the Plaintiffs sent an Administrative Demand
to the Plan Administrator via FedEx Priority Overnight. The
Administrative Demand detailed Plaintiffs' claims and enclosed a
copy of a Complaint identical to the instant one in all material
aspects.
On November 23, 2021, the Plaintiffs received confirmation that the
Administrative Demand was delivered on that day at 11:21 a.m. and
signed for by B. Vargo. In response, by email dated March 3, 2022,
Counsel for the Defendants confirmed that Plaintiffs can now be
considered to have exhausted all administrative remedies.
To safeguard Plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA allegedly
imposes strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon
employers and other plan fiduciaries. Fiduciaries must act "solely
in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries,", with the
"care, skill, prudence, and diligence" that would be expected in
managing a plan of similar scope. These twin fiduciary duties are
"the highest known to the law."
The Department of Labor has explicitly stated that employers are
held to a "high standard of care and diligence" and must, among
other duties, both "establish a prudent process for selecting
investment options and service providers" and "monitor investment
options and service providers once selected to see that they
continue to be appropriate choices."
Plaintiff Stengl participated in the Plan, investing in the options
offered by the Plan and which are the subject of this lawsuit,
including the Fidelity Freedom 2020 K target date fund. In
addition, Plaintiff Stengl was, among other things, subject to the
alleged excessive administration and recordkeeping costs.
Plaintiff Daniel Will resides in West Chester, Pennsylvania. During
his employment, Plaintiff Will participated in the Plan, investing
in the options offered by the Plan and was, among other things,
subject to the alleged excessive administration and recordkeeping
costs.
Plaintiff Ronald F. Kosewicz resides in Little Rock, Arkansas.
During his employment, the Plaintiff Kosewicz participated in the
Plan, investing in the options offered by the Plan and was, among
other things, subject to the alleged excessive administration and
recordkeeping costs.
L3Harris is the Plan sponsor and a named fiduciary. 2019 Form 5500
of the L3 Harris Retirement Savings Plan filed with the United
States Department of Labor. Its corporate headquarters is located
at 1025 West NASA Boulevard, Mail Stop C41I, Melbourne, Florida.
L3Harris describes itself as "an agile global aerospace and defense
technology innovator, delivering end-to-end solutions that meet
customers' mission-critical needs. The company provides advanced
defense and commercial technologies across air, land, sea, space
and cyber domains. L3Harris has approximately $18 billion in annual
revenue and 48,000 employees, with customers in more than 100
countries." 2020 Annual Report of L3Harris Technologies, Inc.
L3Harris, acting through its Board of Directors, appointed the
Committee to, among other things, ensure that the investments
available to Plan participants are appropriate, had no more expense
than reasonable and performed well as compared to their peers.
Under ERISA, fiduciaries with the power to appoint have the
concomitant fiduciary duty to monitor and supervise their
appointees. The Committee fell well short of these fiduciary goals.
Under ERISA, fiduciaries with the power to appoint have the
concomitant fiduciary duty to monitor and supervise their
appointees.
Accordingly, the Board during the putative Class Period is/was a
fiduciary of the Plan, within the meaning of ERISA Section
3(21)(A), 29 U.S.C. section 1002(21)(A) because it had a duty to
monitor the actions of the Committee.
The Committee ensures that the investments available to Plan
participants are appropriate, had no more expense than reasonable
and performed well as compared to their peers. IPS. However, the
Committee failed to prudently carry out its fiduciary duties. As
described in the IPS, the Committee has the responsibility to
"establish, and modify, as appropriate, the investment policies for
the Plan and the investment objectives and performance goals for
the management of Plan investment options, and monitor the
performance of investment options against performance
criteria."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew Fornaro, Esq.
MATTHEW FORNARO, P.A.
11555 Heron Bay Boulevard, Suite 200
Coral Springs, FL 33076
Telephone: (954) 324-3651
Facsimile: (954) 248-2099
E-mail: mfornaro@fornarolegal.com
- and -
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 233-4101
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com
- and -
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
Gabrielle Kelerchian, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
LCS COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT: Maravilla Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LCS Community
Employment LLC. The case is styled as Thalia Maravilla, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LCS
Community Employment LLC, Case No. SCV-270452 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sonoma Cty., March 23, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Other Employment."
LCS Community Employment -- https://www.lcsnet.com/ -- have been
developing, marketing and managing senior living communities for
more than 50 years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
Kristen Michelle Agnew, Esq.
Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
Phone: 213-488-6555
Fax: 213-488-6554
Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
kagnew@diversitylaw.com
nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com
LIFELOCK INC: Giddings Balks at False Identity Theft Protection Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ELBERT GIDDINGS and ELBERT GIDDINGS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LIFELOCK, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 220301624 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty.,
March 16, 2022) arises from the Defendant's misleading, false
and/or deceptive advertisements and website regarding the efficacy
of LifeLock's technology and safeguards in violation of the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
According to the complaint, LifeLock aggressively markets "identity
theft protection" via numerous channels including television,
radio, online and contracted affiliates. The Defendant allegedly
fails to deliver a product that fulfills the numerous promises made
in its advertisements. As a result, Plaintiff, Elbert Giddings, and
those similarly situated customers whom he seeks to represent in
this class action, paid hundreds of dollars for a product that not
only provided them no meaningful protection from identity theft,
but actually created a false sense of security that their interests
were being monitored.
In addition to the misrepresentations contained in LifeLock's
advertising via television, radio, and its website, LifeLock
markets its product through numerous "affiliates," which operate
online. These affiliates sign agreements with LifeLock to receive a
commission in exchange for driving web traffic to LifeLock's
website to sign up as new customers, says the complaint.
LifeLock Inc. is an American identity theft protection company
based in Tempe, Arizona.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alan R. Zibelman, Esq.
PHILADELPHIA LAWYERS GROUP, LLC
Two Penn Center, Suite 1030
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 569-0600
LOCUST MEDICAL: Jackson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Locust Medical, LLC.
The case is styled as Gerard Jackson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Locust Medical, LLC, Case No.
4:22-cv-00424-MWB (M.D. Pa., March 21, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Locust Medical, LLC -- https://locustmedical.com/ -- is doing
business as a local retailer of Locust Medical, LLC, providing
medical supplies and equipment which are considered as Medicare
chargeable items.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (615) 485-0018
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey M. Bower, Esq.
BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC
403 South Allen Street, Suite 210
State College, PA 16801
Phone: (814) 234-2626
Fax: (814) 237-8700
Email: jbower@bower-law.com
MEOW WOLF: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meow Wolf, Inc. The
case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Meow Wolf, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02348
(S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Meow Wolf -- https://meowwolf.com/ -- is an American arts and
entertainment company that creates large-scale immersive art
installations as well as produces streaming content, music videos,
and arts and music festivals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Navez FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARGARITA NAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MERCHANTS & MEDICAL CREDIT
CORPORATION, INC., Case No. 2021CH05310, was removed from the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery
Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on March 23, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-01513 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.
Merchants & Medical Credit Corporation, Inc. is a debt collection
agency, with its principal place of business located in Flint,
Michigan. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Charity A. Olson, Esq.
OLSON LAW GROUP
P.O. Box 64
Hartland, MI 48353
Telephone: (734) 255-6908
E-mail: colson@olsonlawpc.com
MERIDIAN LODGING: Faces Banks Suit Over Collection of Biometrics
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHONNETTE BANKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MERIDIAN LODGING ASSOCIATES, LLP d/b/a HOMEWOOD SUITES
BY HILTON, Case No. 2022LA000268 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., March 18,
2022) is a class action complaint against the Defendant to put a
stop to its unlawful collection, use, and storage of the
Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' sensitive biometric
data.
Meridian is a part of the hotel industry, with locations throughout
Illinois. When employees first begin their jobs at Meridian, they
are required to scan their fingerprint in its biometric time
tracking system as a means of authentication, instead of using only
key fobs or other identification cards, the suit says.
While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks
in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or
identification cards -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen
or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent
biometricidentifiers associated with the employee. This exposes
employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example,
if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise
exposed, employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft
and unauthorized tracking, added the suit.
The Plaintiff worked for Meridian in Illinois through 2019.
As an employee, Meridian required the Plaintiff to scan Plaintiff's
fingerprint so that it could use it as an authentication method to
track time. Meridian subsequently stored Plaintiff's fingerprint
data in its databases. Each time Plaintiff began and ended a
workday, Meridian required a scan of Plaintiff's fingerprints.
The Plaintiff contends that Meridian never informed her of the
specific limited purposes or length of time for which it collected,
stored, or used fingerprints.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Fish, Esq.
Mara Baltabols, Esq.
FISH POTTER BOLANOS, P.C.
200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Telephone: (630) 355-7590
Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
E-mail: docekting@fishlawfirm.com
dfish@fishlawfirm.com
mara@fishlawfirm.com
META PLATFORMS: Logan Suit Transferred to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Don Ramey Logan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Meta Platforms, Inc. formerly
known as: Facebook Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01316, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on March 22, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01805 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Copyright Infringement.
Meta Platforms, Inc. formerly known as: Facebook Inc. --
https://about.facebook.com/meta/ -- is an American multinational
technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq.
32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 421-6492
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph C. Gratz, Esq.
DURIE TANGRI LLP
217 Leidesdorff Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 362-6666
Fax: (415) 236-6300
Email: jgratz@durietangri.com
MISSISSIPPI POWER: Wins Suit Over Overcharged Fees
---------------------------------------------------
Southern Co. Gas disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that its subsidiary,
Mississippi Power, won a putative class action complaint together
with three then-serving members of the Mississippi Public Service
Commission (PSC) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi.
In 2018, Ray C. Turnage and 10 other individual plaintiffs filed
said case, which was amended in March 2019 to include four
additional plaintiffs.
Mississippi Power received Mississippi PSC approval in 2013 to
charge a mirror Construction work in progress (CWIP) rate premised
upon including in its rate base pre-construction and construction
costs for the Kemper Integrated coal gasification combined cycle
(IGCC) prior to placing the Kemper IGCC into service. The
Mississippi Supreme Court reversed that approval and ordered
Mississippi Power to refund the amounts paid by customers under the
previously-approved mirror CWIP rate. The plaintiffs allege that
the initial approval process, and the amount approved, were
improper and make claims for gross negligence, reckless conduct,
and intentional wrongdoing. They also allege that Mississippi Power
underpaid customers by up to $23.5 million in the refund process by
applying an incorrect interest rate. The plaintiffs seek to
recover, on behalf of themselves and their putative class, actual
damages, punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment
interest, attorney's fees, and costs. The district court dismissed
the amended complaint; however, in March 2020, the plaintiffs filed
a motion seeking to name the new members of the Mississippi PSC,
the Mississippi Development Authority, and Southern Company as
additional defendants and add a cause of action against all
defendants based on a dormant commerce clause theory under the U.S.
Constitution. In July 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
to file a third amended complaint, which included the same federal
claims as the proposed second amended complaint, as well as several
additional state law claims based on the allegation that
Mississippi Power failed to disclose the annual percentage rate of
interest applicable to refunds. In November 2020, the court denied
each of the plaintiffs' pending motions and entered final judgment
in favor of Mississippi Power.
On January 22, 2021, the court denied further motions by the
plaintiffs to vacate the judgment and to file a revised second
amended complaint. On February 19, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.
Southern Company is a holding company that owns all of the
outstanding common stock of three traditional electric operating
companies, Southern Power Company, and Southern Company Gas based
in Georgia.
MNG 2005 INC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MNG 2005, Inc. The
case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. MNG 2005, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01554
(E.D.N.Y., March 21, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mng 2005 Inc is located in Saint Louis, MO, United States and is
part of the Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Residents Win $75.3MM Court Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------
Associated Press reports that a group of New Orleans residents
whose homes were built on a toxic landfill decades ago have won a
$75.3 million court judgement against the city, its housing
authority and the local school board.
State district Judge Nicole Sheppard's ruling said 5,000 residents
are entitled to that total amount for emotional distress and
property damage involving the former Agriculture Street landfill,
according to The Times-Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate.
Sheppard's March 14 ruling says the housing authority and the
parish school board were liable for building two residential
communities -- Gordon Plaza and Press Park -- and Moton Elementary
School atop the landfill, which was later named a federal Superfund
site.
Homes in the area were built in the 1970s and 1980s and marketed to
Black, low- and middle-income residents who weren't told that the
site was a one-time landfill. As awareness grew and
environmentalists raised concerns, the area was named a federal
Superfund cleanup site in 1994. Amid reports that the soil was
contaminated with lead and carcinogens, including arsenic,
residents began a decades-long effort to be relocated at government
expense.
"This is a big deal for the residents of Agriculture Street," said
Suzette Bagneris, a lead attorney representing residents.
The city said it was reviewing the ruling but a spokesperson
declined to discuss it further or say whether an appeal was
planned.
Dozens of mostly Black families still live in the area. Last
November, EPA Administrator Michael Regan toured the New Orleans
site while making a five-day "Journey to Justice" tour that
highlighted low-income, mostly minority communities adversely
affected by decades of industrial pollution. The trip included
other stops from Mississippi to Texas.
A Toxics Release Inventory prepared by the EPA shows that African
Americans and other minority groups make up 56% of those living
near toxic sites such as refineries, landfills and chemical plants.
Negative effects include chronic health problems such as asthma,
diabetes and hypertension.
While pleased with the court ruling, one resident questioned
whether the final number would be enough to help residents
relocate.
"It's good news that will hopefully get some of us off this nasty
landfill," said Jesse Perkins, a member of Residents of Gordon
Plaza Inc., a nonprofit representing the subdivision's residents.
But he was skeptical about how much residents would benefit.
Bagneris said the $75 million will be apportioned based on factors
including the number of years each resident lived in the affected
places and the locations of their homes. An example cited by the
newspaper: Someone who lived in Gordon Plaza for 20 or more years
could receive $25,000 and 20% of the value of their home. But
residents have questioned whether their homes have any value, given
the Superfund designation.
Another concern for residents is the city's reputation for failing
to pay legal judgments in a variety of types of lawsuits, including
wrongful deaths and and disputes over city contracts. As of late
November, the city had more than 560 outstanding judgments and
settlements in state and federal courts with some dating back 25
years, according to a Times-Picayune ' New Orleans Advocate
analysis of city law department records. [GN]
NEW YORK FAST: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
OMAR HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK FAST CONCRETE GROUP, INC. and B
SOSA ENTERPRISES CORP., OSCAR VELASQUEZ and BRAYAN SOSA, as
individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01447 (E.D.N.Y., March
16, 2022) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages
and failure to furnish accurate wage notices and statements in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
Mr. Hernandez was employed by the Defendants as a carpenter while
performing related miscellaneous duties from August 2020 until
December 2021.
New York Fast Concrete Group, Inc. is a construction contractor
based in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
PEABODY ENERGY: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Pending in NY Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peabody Energy Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that is it
facing a Securities Class Action filed by the Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension and Retirement System styled "In Re Peabody Energy
Corporation Securities Litigation" (Case No. 1:20-cv-08024) against
the company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
The complaint is filed on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who held Company stock between April 3, 2017 and
October 28, 2019, for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose certain adverse facts
pertaining to safety practices at the company's North Goonyella
Mine and the events leading up to a fire at the mine, and that,
after a September 28, 2018 fire at the mine, made false or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain adverse
facts pertaining to the feasibility of the Company's plan to
restart the mine after the fire.
On January 12, 2021, the Court appointed the Oregon Public
Employees Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff. On January 25, 2021,
the Court entered a scheduling order for this matter. Plaintiffs
filed their amended complaint on March 19, 2021. The defendants
filed a pre-motion letter on April 30, 2021 while the Plaintiffs'
response letter was filed on May 6, 2021. The defendants filed
their motion to dismiss on June 7, 2021. The Plaintiffs' opposition
brief to the motion to dismiss was filed on July 22, 2021. The
defendants filed their reply to Plaintiff's opposition on August
23, 2021, completing briefing at this phase of the litigation.
Peabody is a producer of metallurgical and thermal coal with
interests in 17 active coal mining operations located in the United
States and Australia, including a 50% equity interest in
Middlemount Coal Pty Ltd.
PEABODY ENERGY: Faces Phelps Derivative Suit
--------------------------------------------
Peabody Energy Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that it is
facing a shareholder derivative lawsuit, styled "Phelps v. Samantha
Algaze, et al." (Case No. 1:20-cv-01747-UNA) in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware against certain directors and
former officers of the Company, as defendants. The Company was also
named as a nominal defendant.
The plaintiff did not make a demand on the company's board before
instituting the lawsuit and alleges such demand would have been
futile. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants
failed to disclose adverse facts relating to the safety practices
at the Company's North Goonyella Mine, thereby leading to a
September 28, 2018 fire, and allegedly failed to disclose adverse
facts pertaining to the feasibility of reopening the mine.
The derivative complaint alleges contribution against certain
current and former officers for securities fraud based on the
Securities Class Action, and against all defendants, breach of
fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets for causing the Company
to incur legal liability and unjust enrichment. In late March 2021,
the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to consolidate and stay
both derivative actions for judicial efficiency and cost until the
court rules on the motion to dismiss in the Securities Class
Action.
Peabody is a producer of metallurgical and thermal coal with
interests in 17 active coal mining operations located in the United
States and Australia, including a 50% equity interest in
Middlemount Coal Pty Ltd.
PEABODY ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------
Peabody Energy Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that it is
facing a Securities Class Action filed in September 28, 2020 by the
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System styled "In Re
Peabody Energy Corporation Securities Litigation" (Case No.
1:20-cv-08024) against the company and certain of its officers in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of a putative class of shareholders (Plaintiffs) who held
Company stock between April 3, 2017 and October 28, 2019, for
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose certain adverse facts
pertaining to safety practices at the company's North Goonyella
Mine and the events leading up to a fire at the mine, and that,
after a September 28, 2018 fire at the mine, made false or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain adverse
facts pertaining to the feasibility of the Company's plan to
restart the mine after the fire.
On January 12, 2021, the Court appointed the Oregon Public
Employees Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff. On January 25, 2021,
the Court entered a scheduling order for this matter. Plaintiffs
filed their amended complaint on March 19, 2021. The defendants
filed a pre-motion letter on April 30, 2021 while the Plaintiffs'
response letter was filed on May 6, 2021. The defendants filed
their motion to dismiss on June 7, 2021. The Plaintiffs' opposition
brief to the motion to dismiss was filed on July 22, 2021. The
defendants filed their reply to Plaintiff's opposition on August
23, 2021, completing briefing at this phase of the litigation.
Peabody is a producer of metallurgical and thermal coal with
interests in 17 active coal mining operations located in the United
States and Australia, including a 50% equity interest in
Middlemount Coal Pty Ltd.
PHH MORTGAGE: Pretrial Deadlines in Salter Extended by 60 Days
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM SALTER, and MARIE
JOSEPH, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v.
PHH MORTGAGE CORP., Case No. 0:21-cv-62318-CMA (S.D. Fla), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order continuing the trial
date, and extending all corresponding pretrial deadlines, by 60
days and provide such further relief as it deems just and
appropriate.
The District Court entered an Order setting trial and pre-trial
schedule on December 14, 2021.
On February 9, 2022, the Court entered its Order Granting in Part
and Denying in Part Defendant PHH's Motion to Dismiss. As part of
the Order the Court disagreed with Plaintiffs' arguments that the
notice and cure requirement of section 20 of the operative
mortgages did not apply.
Thus in response to the Court's ruling, the Plaintiffs are
separately seeking leave to amend their complaint and request an
extension of the January 25, 2022 deadline for same, which expired
prior to the Court's ruling.
The Plaintiffs served discovery requests including a draft Rule
30b6 Deposition Notice on Defendant; the Defendant has provided
March 18, 2022 as the proposed deposition date for Defendant's
corporate representative.
The Plaintiffs are awaiting the Defendant's objections to the Rule
30b6 proposed topics and scope.
The Defendant's responses are due on March 17, 2022 to Plaintiffs'
Requests for Production and on March 23, 2022 to Plaintiffs' First
Combined Set of Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories,
respectfully.
Currently, the deadline for class certification discovery is March
18, 2022 and the deadline for Plaintiffs' class certification
motion is March 28, 2022, respectively.
The Plaintiffs need more time to conduct adequate class discovery
in this matter. The Plaintiffs respectfully request the trial date
and all pretrial deadlines for the instant litigation be continued
by 60 days and that all corresponding deadlines set by the Order
Setting Civil Trial Date and Pretrial Schedule , be extended
equally in line with the foregoing continuance in order to allow
for adequate class discovery.
The Defendant does not oppose the proposed continuance but only
agrees to a 30 day extension of the trial date and corresponding
pretrial deadlines, no prior continuances have been granted, and
the continuance is not for the purposes of undue delay.
PHH Mortgage provides mortgage financing solutions.
A copy of Plaintiff's motion dated March 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37IeC3w at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott D. Hirsch, Esq.
SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP
6810 N. State Road 7
Coconut Creek, FL 33073
Telephone: (561) 569-7062
E-mail: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com
- and -
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
Mary M. Nikolai, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Jessica L. Kerr, Esq.
THE ADVOCACY GROUP
100 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (954) 282-1858
Facsimile: (954) 282-8277
E-mail: jkerr@advocacypa.com
PINNACLE FOODS: Raczkowski Sues Over Deceptive Olive Oil Label
--------------------------------------------------------------
CONRAD RACZKOWSKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PINNACLE FOODS INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-02061-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., March 22, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation, fraud,
unjust enrichment, breaches of express warranty, implied warranty
of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose and the
Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and violations of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and state consumer fraud
acts.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its vegetable oil spread under Earth Balance brand. The Defendant
represented the product as "Made With Olive Oil," with green label
statements and packaging, and promoted as "Non-GMO" and "Vegan,"
which caused consumers to expect it contains a significant, non-de
minimis amount of olive oil, in relative and absolute amounts to
all oils used. However, the ingredient list reveals a smaller than
expected amount of olive oil, in absolute and relative terms. The
amount of olive oil is insufficient to confer any of the health
benefits associated with olive oil or deliver the taste of olive
oil. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known the truth, they
would not have bought the product or would have paid less for it.
Pinnacle Foods Inc. is a packaged foods company, with its principal
place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
PLAYERS TRUNK: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Players Trunk
LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. The Players Trunk LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02342 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Players Trunk -- https://theplayerstrunk.com/ -- is a
marketplace that sells player-owned and game-worn gear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
PRESTIGE HOMECARE: Hill Sues Over Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOANNE HILL and JASON HILL, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRESTIGE HOMECARE, LLC, CHERYL
SMITH, and SHIRLEY ELLIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00065 (E.D.
Tenn., March 16, 2022) is a class action brought under the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act for Defendants' failure to pay overtime
compensation to Plaintiffs and all similarly situated persons.
The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as companionship caregivers.
JoAnne Hill worked for Defendants from approximately March 1, 2020
to February 22, 2022. Jason Hill worked for Defendants from
approximately April 15, 2020 to August 29, 2021.
Prestige Homecare, LLC is a for profit limited liability company
formed and organized under Tennessee law and currently conducting
business as an in-home provider of healthcare and companionship
services to patients in the Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama
Tri-State area.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Doug S. Hamill, Esq.
MIKEL & HAMILL PLLC
620 Lindsay Street, Suite 200
Chattanooga, TN 37403
Telephone: (423) 541-5400
E-mail: dhamill@mhemploymentlaw.com
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Driggins Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Advanced
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Yeshonda Driggins,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Progressive Advanced Insurance Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-01065
(E.D. Pa., March 21, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Progressive Advanced Insurance Company --
http://www.progressive.com/-- operates as an insurance firm. The
Company underwrites motor vehicle insurance policies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (610) 234-6487
Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Junks Cho ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, 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 17, 2022, that in September
2021, the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted a motion to dismiss an amended complaint without
prejudice of a November 2019 a putative class action complaint
entitled "Cho v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et.
al."
The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of participants in
the Prudential Employee Savings Plan and alleges that defendants
failed to fulfill their fiduciary obligations under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), in the
administration, management and operation of the Plan, including
engaging in prohibited transactions and seeks declaratory,
injunctive and equitable relief, and unspecified damages including
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
In January 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. In September 2020, plaintiff filed an amended complaint
and added as individual defendants certain PFI officers and current
and former members of the company's Administrative Committee and
Investment Oversight Committee.
In December 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. In September 2021, the court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice. In October
2021, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint asserting claims
against defendants under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 for breach of fiduciary duty, prohibited transactions
and failure to monitor fiduciaries.
The second amended complaint seeks declaratory, injunctive and
equitable relief, unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
In December 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.
Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial services provider and an
investment manager based in New Jersey.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Doyle Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, 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 17, 2022, that a February 2021
putative class action complaint entitled "Doyle C. Stone v.
Prudential Financial, Inc., Pruco Life Insurance Company," was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey was dismissed after a notice of voluntary dismissal with
prejudice was filed by the plaintiffs.
The complaint asserts claims against Prudential Financial, Inc. and
Pruco Life Insurance Company for violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing,
misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, based on the company's
alleged deficient identification, notification and payment
practices for retirement plan participants in transferred group
retirement, annuity and insurance plans and improper transfer of
Plan Participant funds to its own accounts. The putative class
includes all Plan Participants from January 2015 to the present.
In April 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
In June 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of
the complaint, without prejudice. In August 2021, plaintiff filed a
new putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting claims against
Prudential Financial, Inc. and Pruco Life Insurance Company for
violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of fiduciary
duty, unjust enrichment and common law fraud. The putative class
includes all Plan Participants from January 2015 until the present.
In September 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Complaint.
In November 2021, the court issued an order granting defendants'
motion and dismissed plaintiff's fraud claims without prejudice and
breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims with
prejudice. In January 2022, plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal with Prejudice that was approved by the Court.
Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial services provider and an
investment manager based in New Jersey.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Griffin RICO Suit in S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, 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 17, 2022, that a class action
complaint was filed alleging that the company violated the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
In February 2021, an amended putative class action complaint
entitled "William James Griffin, et al. v. Benefytt Technologies,
Inc. (f/k/a Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.), Health Plan
Intermediaries Holdings, Inc. and Assurance IQ, LLC," was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, alleging that the defendants violated the Racketeering
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and engaged in a
conspiracy to defraud customers through the sale of limited
indemnity and short term health insurance products to individuals
seeking comprehensive medical insurance. The complaint seeks
unspecified treble damages, declaratory and injunctive relief. In
June 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.
Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial services provider and an
investment manager based in New Jersey.
RAYTHEON COMPANY: Curry Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------
Timmieo Curry, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Raytheon Company; Raytheon Bargaining
Retirement Plan; Does 1 through 10, Plan Administrator of the
Raytheon Bargaining Plan, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00129-JAS
(D. Ariz., March 16, 2022) is a class action brought under the
Employee Income Security Act of 1974 to declare Plaintiff's rights
under the terms of the Raytheon Bargaining Retirement Plan and
predecessor plans and to enforce Plaintiff's rights, and remedy
violations of the Plan and ERISA.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have a fiduciary
responsibility to provide Plaintiff and class members with truthful
and adequate disclosures of benefits provisions, to administer the
plan in accordance with ERISA and the documents and instruments
governing the plan insofar as such documents and instruments are
consistent with ERISA, and to oversee the operation of the Plan and
to remedy errors and omissions.
By the acts and omissions made by the Defendants, including, inter
alia, by applying amendments retroactively to reduce accrued
benefits and future benefit accruals without notice, by failing to
adequately provide notice of Plan provisions and amendments, by
failing to give advance notice to Mr. Curry and Class 1 members
that the Plan was amended to eliminate the right to return to the
contributory part of the Plan upon a voluntary termination of
employment, by failing to provide notice and opportunities to Mr.
Curry and Class 2 members to repay withdrawn contributions, by
failing to oversee and correct benefits statements that Defendants
knew or should have known were incorrect, by failing to determine
participants' rights to benefits under the Plan with reference to
nonforfeitable rights and accrued benefits under the Plan, and by
depriving Plaintiff and class members of rights protected by ERISA
and the terms of the Plan, Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to Plaintiff and class members, asserts the complaint.
Raytheon Company is a technology company specializing in defense,
homeland security, and other government markets throughout the
world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Susan Martin, Esq.
Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
Michael M. Licata, Esq.
MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C.
4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Telephone: (602) 240-6900
E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com
jkroll@martinbonnett.com
mlicata@martinbonnett.com
RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Klein Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEPHANIE KLEIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.,
Case No. 22-000703-CI, was removed from the County Court in and for
Pinellas County, Florida Civil Division, to the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida on March 22, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 8:22-cv-00667 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Plaintiff's claims under Article III of
the U.S. Constitution.
Receivable Management Group, Inc. is a debt collection agency
located in Columbus, Georgia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Chantel Wonder, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
Miami Tower
100 S.E. Second Street, Suite 3900
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 428-5309
E-mail: cwonder@grsm.com
RETROSPECTIVE GOODS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retrospective Goods,
LLC. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Retrospective Goods, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02268 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Retrospective Goods, LLC is located in Brooklyn, New York and is
part of the Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers
Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
SALEM FIVE BANCORP: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Salem Five Bancorp.
The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Salem Five Bancorp, Case No.
1:22-cv-02340 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Salem Five -- https://www.salemfive.com/ -- provides full-service
financial services including private banking, checking, deposit,
and savings accounts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
SBS SPORTS: Sanchez Suit Seeks Blind's Access to Online Store
-------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTIAN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SBS SPORTS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02321-ALC (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
Saintbernard.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (a)
the screen reader fails to read advertisement pop up links; (b) the
screen reader fails to read the "search" banner; (c) the screen
reader skips over certain text on the page; (d) the screen reader
fails to describe the promotional images and other images; (e) the
screen reader fails to read the "sub-menu" tab even when the item
is selected; (f) the screen reader abruptly stops functioning in
the middle of a sentence or speech; and (g) the screen reader fails
to read the "cart" link when a new item is added.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
SBS Sports, Inc. is an online retail company that conducts business
in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
Jarrett S. Charo, Esq.
William J. Downes, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 595-6200
Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
wdownes@mizrahikroub.com
SESSOMS & ROGERS: Hall Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sessoms & Rogers,
P.A. The case is styled as David Hall, individually and on behalf
all others similarly situated v. Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., Case No.
3:22-cv-00124 (W.D.N.C., March 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Sessoms & Rogers, P.A. -- https://www.sessomslaw.com/home -- is a
Durham-based civil litigation law firm established in 1984.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Randolph Emory, Esq.
THE EMORY LAW FIRM, P.C.
11020 David Taylor Drive, Suite 102
Charlotte, NC 28262
Phone: (704) 371-4333
Fax: (704) 371-3015
Email: emorylawecf@gmail.com
SHEN BEAUTY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shen Beauty LLC. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Shen Beauty LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02317 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Shen Beauty -- https://shen-beauty.com/ -- offers unrivaled
selection of, skin care, makeup, fragrance and more from classic
and emerging brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
SOFT SURFBOARDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Soft Surfboards, Inc.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Soft Surfboards, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02318 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Soft Surfboards Inc. doing business as Liquid Shredder --
https://liquidshredder.com/soft-surfboards/ -- was founded in 2000.
The company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution
of sporting and recreation goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
SOLHEIM LUTHERAN: Villeda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solheim Lutheran
Home. The case is styled as Rhina Villeda, on behalf of herself,
the state of california, and others similarly situated and
aggrieved v. Solheim Lutheran Home, a California corporation, Case
No. 22STCV09841 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 21,
2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Solheim Lutheran Home -- https://solheimsenior.org/ -- is a
retirement home in Los Angeles, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
MICHAEL R. CROSNER A LAW CORP
9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4614
Phone: 818-515-2382
Fax: 310-510-6429
Email: mrclawyer@aol.com
STATE FARM MUTUAL: Williams Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company. The case is styled as Bernadette
Williams, Rick McConnell, Rosilyn Wilson, Linda Lewis, Latasha
Huff, Haunanimae Cervantes-White, Maria Munoz, Kimberly Benson, Roy
Tuinstra, Evelyn Brown, Michelle Snyder, William Ross Dean, Richard
Dacheff, Diane Newkirk, Sandra Smiling, Shaun Robert, Roque
Espinoza, Jennifer Payne, Latishia Bowden, DJ Neill, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-01422 (N.D. Ill.,
March 18, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
State Farm Insurance -- https://www.statefarm.com/ -- is a large
group of mutual insurance companies throughout the United States
with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
STEVES MARINE: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steves Marine of
Amityville, Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Steves Marine
of Amityville, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02250-AJN (S.D.N.Y., March
18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Steves Marine of Amityville -- http://www.stevesmarine.com/-- is a
marine supply store in Amityville, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
155 East 55th St., Ste. 6a
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawpc.com
STRONGS MARINE: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Strongs Marine, Inc.
The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Strongs Marine, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02251 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Strong's Marine -- https://www.strongsmarine.com/ -- provides the
highest level of marine service and sales at the best value on Long
Island.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
155 East 55th St., Ste. 6a
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawpc.com
SWISS FARMS PRODUCTS: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Swiss Farms Products,
Inc. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Swiss
Farms Products, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01503 (E.D.N.Y., March 18,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Swiss Farms -- https://www.swiss-farms.com/ -- create and nurture
brands that take an innovative, inspired, and joyful approach to
bringing plants into people's interior and exterior spaces.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
TIKTOK INC: High Court Allows Data Protection Claim to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teacher Stern LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that on
March 8, 2022, High Court Judge Matthew Nicklin allowed a data
protection claim against TikTok to continue stating that the case
has a serious issue to be tried.
This follows the case of Lloyd v Google in November 2021 where the
Supreme Court blocked a class-action claim for compensation against
Google for tracking Apple iPhone users' internet activity for
several months without permission. This landmark ruling prevented
similar group actions against big tech firms that handle the data
of millions of people.
The claim in the TikTok case was brought by Anne Longfield, the
former UK Children's Commissioner, on behalf of a class of child
users on TikTok. Longfield claimed that the private information of
children had been collected illegally and that TikTok's collection
practices and structures were deliberately opaque obscuring the
final destination of the information gathered.
This claim is one of the few remaining mass data claims after the
Lloyd v Google decision and is brought under the 'representative
action' mechanism, which means that claimants must actively opt-out
of the claim if they do not wish to continue. This means that all
children who have signed into TikTok since 25 May 2018 are
automatically part of the claim. Longfield claimed that each child
should receive at least GBP1,000.
Nicklin J considered the issues and whether the case was
sufficiently different from LLoyd v Google. Nicklin J expressed his
doubts over if the case was sufficiently different but has allowed
the claim to continue and allowed the claim to be served on several
Defendants, TikTok's Chinese, US and Cayman Island entities. The
5th Defendant was a seperate Chinese entity but the application for
an extension of time and an alternative means of service was not
granted.
Tiktok's lawyers have said that they plan to seek summary judgment
against the claimant or to get the claim struck out. If TikTok's
lawyers are unsuccessful in doing so, it will be interesting to
read the Defence and see how the courts deals with the matter going
forward. [GN]
TRANSAMERICA AGENCY: Cline Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Len Cline, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
TRANSAMERICA AGENCY NETOWRK, LLC, a Florida company, Case No.
3:22-cv-00262-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla., March 9, 2022), arises from a
campaign by the Defendant to market its services through
telemarketing calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff started receiving
unwanted telephonic sales calls, from the Defendant to his cell
phone soliciting Defendant's services. The Plaintiff has never had
any business relationship with the Defendant. The Plaintiff was not
looking for the Defendant's products and has never given his
express written consent to the Defendant to place telephonic
solicitation calls to his cell phone. The Plaintiff received, and
continues to receive, multiple unwanted telephonic solicitation
calls marketing health insurance, from the Defendant. Neither the
Plaintiff nor any other members of the proposed classes ever
provided the Defendant and/or their agents with prior express
written consent to receive the telephone calls at issue.
The Defendant does not have any record of express written consent
to place telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff or to members of the
proposed classes. The Plaintiff and all members of the Classes have
been harmed by the acts of the Defendant because their privacy has
been violated, they were annoyed and harassed, and, in some
instances, they were charged for incoming calls. In response to
these calls, the Plaintiff file this lawsuit seeking injunctive
relief requiring the Defendant to cease violating the TCPA and
FTSA, as well as an award of statutory damages to the members of
the Classes and costs, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Cline is a resident of Putman County, Florida.
Transamerica is a marketing group with Transamerica Premier Life
Insurance Company and affiliated Transamerica companies offering
insurance and financial products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stefan Coleman, Esq.
COLEMAN PLLC
66 West Flagler Street, Suite 900
Miami, FL 33130
Phone: (877) 333-9427
Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
Email: law@stefancoleman.com
- and -
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. (FL Bar no. 84382)
KAUFMAN P.A
237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4
Coral Gables, Florida 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
TRUSTEES OF UNITE HERE: Acosta Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trustees of Unite
Here Health. The case is styled as Jose Luis Acosta, Armando
Garcia, Maria Sanchez, Glynndana Shevlin, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated current and former participants of
UNITE HERE Health Plan Units 178 and 278, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Board of Trustees of UNITE HERE
Health, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 1:22-cv-01458 (N.D.
Ill., March 21, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor for Employee
Benefits.
Unite Here Health -- https://www.uhh.org/ -- is a Taft-Hartley
labor management trust fund.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth L. Rowe, Esq.
George A. Luscombe, III, Esq.
Stephen Anthony Yokich, Esq.
Robert E. Bloch, Esq.
DOWD, BLOCH, BENNETT, CERVONE, AUERBACH & YOKICH
8 S. Michigan Ave., 19th Floor
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 372-1361
Email: efile@laboradvocates.com
UNITED AIRLINES: Loucks Suit Asserts Breach of Separation Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA LOUCKS, ROXANN MERLINI, and JO GAWLER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED
AIRLINES, INC., UNITED AIRLINES 36-MONTH SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFIT PLAN,
and UNITED AIRLINES VOLUNTARY SEPARATION LEAVE PROGRAM, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01390 (C.D. Cal., March 10, 2022) is brought
against the Defendant for breach of contract and for violation of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
In an effort to reduce its workforce, United allegedly promised its
employees that if they retired and within three years thereafter it
offered a voluntary separation program, those employees would
receive benefits under that program if those benefits were superior
to what the employees had received at retirement.
The Plaintiffs retired within the three years preceding United's
January 21, 2021, offering of its United Airlines Frontline
Voluntary Separation Leave program, but were wrongfully denied the
benefits of that program, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated former employees of United, bring this action under ERISA
or, in the alternative, state contract law, to obtain those
benefits or damages, as well as other relief.
United Airlines, Inc. is a major U.S. airline headquartered at
Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois. United operates a large domestic
and international route network spanning cities large and small
across the United States and all six inhabited continents.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 463-3900
Facsimile: (510) 463-3901
E-mail: jlewis@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Mark D. DeBofsky, Esq.
DEBOFSKY SHERMAN CASCIARI REYNOLDS, P.C.
150 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1925
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 561-4040
Facsimile: (312) 929-0309
E-mail: mdebofsky@debofsky.com
- and -
David S. Preminger, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1140 Avenue of the Americas, Ninth Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (646) 380-6690
Facsimile: (646) 380-6692
E-mail: dpreminger@kellerrohrback.com
UPHOLD HQ: McGuireWoods Attorneys Discuss Crypto Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Flannery, Esq., Andrew Gann, Esq., Kristen Mynes, Esq., and
Samuel Tarry, Esq., of McGuireWoods LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
report that a Feb. 28, 2022, McGuireWoods alert discussing a recent
case concerning non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and breach-of-contract
claims suggested that future litigation over digital assets --
especially as it relates to tort claims under deceptive trade
practices -- was likely on the horizon. Less than a week later,
that prediction came true.
Cryptocurrency (crypto) is a digital currency without a physical
form. It is generally decentralized and not issued by a government
or a bank. Crypto is a tradable digital asset built on blockchain
technology online. Since 2009, when bitcoin was initially released
and introduced, over 1,000 cryptocurrencies have been developed and
released. More than 380 crypto exchanges currently exist online as
well.
Information Security and Uphold HQ
Uphold HQ Inc. brands itself as a multi-asset digital money
platform offering financial services. It serves over 184 countries
across more than 80 traditional and crypto currencies. Its website
also details Uphold's "state-of-the-art security" and asserts that
"[w]e obsess about" security.
Uphold's security is under scrutiny due to a negligence lawsuit
filed by three plaintiffs seeking class certification. Theodore
Rider, Jesse Smith and Gilles Boevi brought this suit for
negligence resulting from an alleged failure of Uphold's
multifactor authentication method to protect their crypto wallets
from being hacked and stolen. The plaintiffs allege that Uphold's
security practices fell below the standard of the industry and that
Uphold's inadequacies resulted in a breach of the duty of
reasonable care.
Each plaintiff details how Uphold's security practices led to their
loss of approximately $60,000, collectively. Particularly, the
plaintiffs allege that Boevi's story exemplifies the experience of
others in the putative class of victims. Boevi received an email on
Aug. 1, 2021, from Uphold informing him that someone had initiated
a transaction affecting his holdings, but he had not initiated the
transaction and he could not log onto his Uphold account. He
quickly learned that someone had disabled his two-factor
authentication. Boevi immediately contacted Uphold's support, and
alleges that, although support acknowledged his messages, it failed
to freeze his account to prevent further transactions. Two hours
after Boevi first notified Uphold of the transactions, the
unauthorized user transferred all of Boevi's crypto -- valued at
$26,176.21 -- out of his account. According to Boevi, 11 minutes
after the final transaction, Uphold support froze his account.
After it froze Boevi's account, Uphold conducted an internal
investigation and concluded it was in no way responsible for the
loss. The email transmitting information about the investigation
informed Boevi that the unauthorized user changed Boevi's
two-factor authentication device. Uphold offered no recourse and
suggested that Boevi take the matter to his local law enforcement.
Boevi's experience was replicated in the cases of both Rider and
Smith — their two-factor authentication methods were changed
without their permission, and they lost $22,000 and $12,000,
respectively. Following these breaches of security and thefts, the
plaintiffs allege, Uphold has not disclosed or publicly
acknowledged this vulnerability, leaving users unwittingly exposed
to the risk.
The plaintiffs bring claims for negligence, negligence per se,
violations of New York consumer law, unjust enrichment, breach of
contract, breach of warranty, and negligent misrepresentation. To
prevail on a negligence claim, plaintiffs must prove: (1) duty; (2)
breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages. See Sawyer v. Wight, 196
F.Supp. 2d 220 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). The plaintiffs allege that the duty
here was created by Uphold accepting and storing the plaintiffs'
private information and crypto wallets. As a result, Uphold owed
the plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care. Uphold breached this duty
by knowingly disregarding standard information security principles
and permitting unauthorized users to change two-factor
authentication methods without contacting the user. Because of this
breach, the unauthorized users accessed the accounts and stole the
crypto, resulting in loss of plaintiffs' assets.
Negligence per se is a different cause of action wherein the duty
and breach elements of a negligence claim are satisfied by the
violation of a statute. See Cretcher v. United States Bank N.A.,
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52815, at * 8 (E.D.N.Y. March 19, 2021).
Here, the plaintiffs allege that Uphold violated Section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), which bars unfair and
deceptive acts and practices "in or affecting commerce." The
plaintiffs allege that Uphold violated the FTCA by failing to
maintain appropriate security, misrepresenting the strength of its
security measures, and misleading users into believing that it
monitored their accounts for potential fraud 24/7. Likewise, the
plaintiffs' claims for violations of New York consumer law rely on
deceptive acts or practices in the state of New York. New York
General Business Law 349 prohibits deceptive acts or practices in
the conduct of any business, trade or commerce, or in the
furnishing of any service in the state of New York.
Every jurisdiction prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices
and false advertising. State laws are generally modeled after the
FTCA. Over the past several years, the plaintiffs' bar has begun
making claims for deceptive trade practices as a general basis for
liability, akin to basic negligence. Some states permit enhanced
penalties for deceptive trade practices litigation, including
attorney's fees, which are attractive to plaintiffs' counsel. In
New York alone, deceptive trade practice litigation has increased
from 60 deceptive trade practice class actions filed in 2017, to
more than 200 filed in 2021. In this case, the court will broach
the subject of deceptive trade practices as they apply to digital
assets and crypto exchanges. Crypto cases will likely continue to
increase the number of deceptive trade practices class actions
filed nationwide.
In this case, the plaintiffs further allege that Uphold was
unjustly enriched because users conferred a monetary benefit on
Uphold by paying fees and commissions to purchase, exchange and
sell cryptocurrencies, but did not receive the protection of their
accounts in return. To succeed on a breach-of-contract claim,
plaintiffs must show: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) breach
of a duty imposed by the contract; and (3) resultant damages. See
Low Carbon Processors, LLC v. Kennametal, Inc., 693 F. Supp. 2d 191
(N.D.N.Y. 2010). The plaintiffs allege that they entered into
written contracts with Uphold, including its terms of service and
its privacy policy. By not providing adequate security, Uphold
breached the contract, resulting in the plaintiffs' loss of
crypto.
Similarly, the elements of a breach-of-warranty claim are: (1)
existence of the warranty; (2) breach of the warranty; and (3)
damages proximately caused by the breach. See Gerrity v. R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 399 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D. Conn. 2005). The
plaintiffs allege that Uphold promised to users on its website,
smart phone application and promotional materials that it was an
industry leader in account security and that it maintained numerous
safeguards to protect against unauthorized account access.
Finally, a successful claim for negligent misrepresentation must
show: (1) the defendant had a duty as a result of a special
relationship to give correct information; (2) the defendant made a
false representation that he or she should have known was
incorrect; (3) the defendant knew that the plaintiff desired the
information for a serious purpose; (4) the plaintiff intended to
rely and act upon it; and (5) the plaintiff reasonably relied on it
to his or her detriment. See Ritani, LLC v. Aghjayan, 970 F. Supp.
2d 232 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). As noted above, the plaintiffs allege that
all representations about Uphold's security were false, that the
plaintiffs would not have used Uphold's services had they known the
security measures were inadequate, and that they relied on Uphold's
misrepresentations when they stored their crypto on Uphold's
exchange, resulting in the loss of their crypto when unauthorized
users exploited Uphold's inadequate security to breach the
plaintiffs' accounts.
This lawsuit will highlight how traditional legal principles such
as negligence apply to the digital world. The case, although built
from legal principles familiar to clients, will dive into the world
of crypto and online security. Crypto exchanges can face class
action lawsuits for failure to provide adequate security measures.
These exchanges must adhere to the rules of the analog world or
they will face the consequences of lawsuits alleging deceptive
trade practices, negligence, breach of contract and warranty,
misrepresentation, and violations of state and federal law.
Expect the uptick in deceptive trade practices class actions
described above to continue to increase with the rise in litigation
over digital assets. The continued rise of digital assets and
crypto will result in increased litigation in areas of settled law
as they apply to new digital instruments. [GN]
VALLEY PROTEINS: Settlement in Hollis Suit Wins Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER HOLLIS, et
al., v. VALLEY PROTEINS INC., Case No. 3:21-CV-00112-FDW-DSC
(W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Frank D. Whitney entered an order
granting the following:
1. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
and Collective Action Settlement,
2. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees and Reimbursement
of Expenses; and
3. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Service
Awards.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class Conditionally as a
Collective Action and for a Court-Authorized Notice to be Issued
Under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act; Plaintiffs'
Amended Motion to Certify Class as a Collective Action and for a
Court-Authorized Notice to be Issued Under Section 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act; Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class Under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and for Appointment of Class Counsel Under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(g); and Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings are denied as moot.
-- The Court conditionally certifies the following Settlement
Class pursuant to pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for
settlement purposes only in accordance with the terms of
the Settlement Agreement:
"Any individual employed by Defendant as a driver in North
Carolina during the time period March 19, 2019 to January
13, 2022."
-- Attorney Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses
1) The Plaintiffs' Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in
the amount equal to one-third of the Maximum Gross
Settlement Amount (i.e., $2,250,000.00); and
2) The Plaintiffs' Counsel are awarded litigation costs
and expenses in the amount of $63,000.00, to come from
the Gross Settlement Amount.
-- Service Awards
(1) A Service Award to Named Plaintiff Christopher Hollis
is approved in the amount of $100,000.00;
(2) A Service Award to Named Plaintiff Herman Purvis is
approved in the amount of $50,000.00;
(3) A Service Award to Named Plaintiff Veraka Sturdivant is
approved in the amount of $50,000.00;
(4) A Service Award to Opt-In Plaintiff Justin Cofield is
approved in the amount of $2,000.00;
(5) A Service Award to Opt-In Plaintiff Rodney Johnson is
approved in the amount of $2,000.00;
(6) A Service Award to Opt-In Plaintiff Nelson Johnson is
approved in the amount of $2,000.00;
(7) A Service Award to Opt-In Plaintiff Ricky Rich is
approved in the amount of $2,000.00;
(8) A Service Award to Opt-In Plaintiff Terry Green is
approved in the amount of $2,000.00;
(9) A Service Award to Opt-In Plaintiff Sean Lucas is
approved in the amount of $2,000.00; and
(10) A Service Award to Opt-In Plaintiff Danny Galbreath is
approved in the amount of $2,000.00.
Valley Proteins provides rendering and recycling of animal
by-products.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3570CQ4 at no extra charge.[CC]
VARIETY COFFEE: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Variety Coffee
Roasters, Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Variety Coffee
Roasters, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01528 (E.D.N.Y., March 21, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Variety Coffee Roasters -- https://varietycoffeeroasters.com/ -- is
a subscription services offering delicious, fresh coffee delivered
when needed.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Settlement Deal in Wolther Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Veeco Instruments Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that a settlement is
underway on the purported class action complaint captioned "Wolther
v. Maheshwari et al."
Veeco and the court-appointed class representatives signed an
agreement to settle said action in October 2021 on a class-wide
basis for $15.0 million, subject to court approval and class
members' opportunity to object and opt-out. The company reported
that the settlement amount will be funded by insurance carriers.
On June 8, 2018, an Ultratech shareholder who received Veeco stock
as part of the consideration for the Ultratech acquisition by
Veeco, filed a purported class action complaint on behalf of
himself and others who purchased or acquired shares of Veeco
pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus which Veeco
filed with the SEC in connection with the Ultratech acquisition.
On August 2 and August 8, 2018, two purported class action
complaints substantially similar to the Wolther action were filed
on behalf of different plaintiffs in the same court as the Wolther
Action. These cases have been consolidated with the Wolther Action,
and a consolidated complaint was filed on December 11, 2018. The
consolidated complaint seeks to recover damages and fees under
Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for, among
other things, alleged false/misleading statements in the
registration statement and prospectus relating to the Ultratech
acquisition, relating primarily to the alleged failure to disclose
delays in the advanced packaging business, increased MOCVD
competition in China, and an intellectual property dispute.
Veeco is a manufacturer of advanced semiconductor process equipment
headquartered in Plainview, New York.
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Trust Appeals Dismissal of Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Veeco Instruments Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2022, that in January 25,
2021, the court granted the defendants' demurrer without leave to
amend effecting the dismissal of a December 21, 2018 purported
Veeco stockholder derivative action in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned "Vladimir
Gusinsky Revocable Trust v. Peeler, et al.," (Case No.
18CV339925).
The complaint sought to assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment against current
and former Veeco directors premised on purported misstatements and
omissions in the registration statement relating to Veeco's
Ultratech acquisition. Plaintiff is appealing the dismissal of its
case.
Veeco is a manufacturer of advanced semiconductor process equipment
headquartered in Plainview, New York.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Sherrod Class Suit Over Defective Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Sherrod and Michael Fulbright, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01537-CCC-JSA (D.N.J., March 18, 2022) is a class
action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a proposed class of
past and present owners and lessees of defective 2019-2022
Volkswagen Atlas, Golf, Jetta, Tiguan and Taos vehicles (the "Class
Vehicles") designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold,
warranted, and serviced by Defendant Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc.
According to the complaint, VW has known at all relevant times, and
before it sold the Class Vehicles to the Plaintiffs, that the Class
Vehicles contain one or more defects in the way the vehicles are
manufactured and/or made that cause the Class Vehicles' Wiring
Harness Defects to fail and result in the Class Vehicles
erratically applying the emergency brakes on their own, opening and
closing the windows on their own, and displaying numerous error
messages and emitting warning noises.
In a recent March 15, 2022 AP News article reporting on the Wiring
Harness Defect in Atlas vehicles, VW issued a statement stating "VW
is aware of concerns involving faulty door wiring harnesses in
certain Atlas and Atlas Cross Sport vehicles" and that it is
"working closely with NHTSA regarding the next steps towards
identifying the affected vehicles."
Allegedly, VW has not issued any safety recall regarding the Defect
and it has failed to adequately repair the defect under VW's
warranty. Indeed, in November 2021 VW issued a "Technical Tip" No.
97-21-02TT to its dealerships acknowledging that when the Class
Vehicles experience the Wiring Harness Defect, "Various warning
lights may illuminate, the windows may operate erratically, and
several communication faults are stored." It explained that "A poor
connection in/at the door wiring harness may cause fault code
U019900 or U020000 to be stored along with many other faults. This
may also cause unwanted activation of certain vehicle systems, such
as the windows opening/closing by themselves," and directed dealers
to attempt a repair by replacing the wiring harness.
However, VW's attempts to repair the Defect are inadequate. To
begin, VW has not provided its dealership with adequate replacement
wiring harness, and thus when Class Vehicles owners complain about
the defect and seek a repair they are told parts are unavailable.
Accordingly, Class Vehicle owners, including Plaintiffs, have been
waiting months for parts with no end in sight. For instance, one
Class Vehicle owner waited more than two months for a replacement
wiring harness and only "received a call telling her that the part
had come in and that her vehicle had been repaired" after "a
reporter contacted the dealership" regarding the issue, says the
suit.
VW has and will continue to benefit from its alleged unlawful
conduct - by selling more vehicles, at a higher price, and avoiding
warranty obligations - while consumers are harmed at the point of
sale as their vehicles continue to suffer from the unremedied
Wiring Harness Defect, the Plaintiffs contend.
To remedy VW's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of the
proposed class members, seek damages and restitution from VW, as
well as notification to class members about the defect.
Volkswagen Group is the North American operational headquarters,
and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of automobile companies of
Germany. VWoA is responsible for five marques: Audi, Bentley,
Bugatti, Lamborghini, and Volkswagen cars.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sofia Balile, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW, LLC
43 Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: (917) 981-0849
Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
WEATHERFORD FIT: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weatherford Fit, LLC.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Weatherford Fit, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02344 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Weatherford Fit -- https://www.weatherford5.com/ -- offers clean,
natural supplements and easy to follow workout programs that help
customers get maximum results out of their fitness routine.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
WEST CAPITAL LENDING: MacDonald Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against West Capital Lending,
Inc. The case is styled as Darren MacDonald, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. West Capital Lending,
Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-00369-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal., March 9, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
West Capital Lending -- https://westcapitallending.com/ -- is a
mortgage broker in Tustin, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
WESTCO CHEMICALS: Draney Suit Seeks Initial Nod of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Draney and Lorenzo
Ibarra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Westco Chemicals, Inc.; Alan Zwillinger; and Steven
Zwillinger, Case No. 2:19-cv-01405-ODW-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. preliminarily approving the proposed settlement of this
class action on the terms set forth in the settlement
agreement;
2. approving the proposed notice of settlement;
3. certifying a settlement class under Rule 23(b)(1)(b) or
23(b)(3); and
4. scheduling a final settlement hearing.
The Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion requesting the Court to
certify this action as a class action and to preliminarily approve
a class action settlement. The Court 19 the motion without
prejudice. The Court's Order denying the motion raises concerns
about the merits of Plaintiffs' claims, fairness of the proposed
settlement, certification under Rule 23, evidence of damages, and
notice to class members.
Before Defendants agreed to settle this case, the Defendants moved
for summary judgment. The Defendants argued that Plaintiffs' claims
are time barred by ERISA's three-year statute of limitations.
The Plaintiffs argued that disputed issues of material facts exist
concerning when Plaintiffs actually knew of Defendants' alleged
fiduciary breaches. After Defendants' motion for summary judgment
was fully briefed the parties participated in a mediation with Gail
A. Glick, Esq. who is a neutral with Judicate West.
The parties did not reach a settlement at the mediation. However,
Ms. Glick continued to work with the parties for over a month after
the mediation concluded.
Ms. Glick eventually submitted to the parties a mediator's
proposal. After three years of vigorous litigation and more than a
month negotiating a potential settlement both parties agreed to
settle the case consistent with the terms of the mediator's
proposal.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 8, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JxDmcJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
SOLOUKI SAVOY LLP
316 West 2nd Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone: (213) 814-4940
Facsimile: (213) 814-2550
E-mail: shoham@soloukisavoy.com
- and -
Michael C. McKay, Esq.
MCKAY LAW, LLC
7702 E. Doubletree Ranch Rd., Ste. 300
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Telephone: (480) 681-7000
Facsimile: (480) 348-3999
E-mail: mmckay@mckaylaw.us
WHITEFISH, MT: Faces Class Action Over New Dev't Impact Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Desch, writing for Daily Inter Lake, reports that a
class-action lawsuit has been filed in U.S. District Court of
Montana against the city of Whitefish alleging that the city has
been charging "unreasonable, unlawful and unconstitutional" impact
fees for new development.
"These impact fees greatly exceed reasonable compensation for the
actual impacts of new development, remodels and renovations on
water and wastewater services in the city," the lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiffs in the suit include Jeff Beck, Robert Odenweller, Terri
Odenweller, Amy Weinberg, Zac Weinberg, Alta Views, LLC and
Riverview Company, LLC. All the plaintiffs are individuals or
companies that applied for building permits with the city and were
charged impact fees for water and wastewater services.
Impact fees are one-time charges for new development or remodels to
compensate for the cost of public infrastructure required to
provide services. State law allows local governments to charge
impact fees, but provides limitations on how those fees may be
established and calculated.
The lawsuit alleges that the city unlawfully inflated impact fee
rates, overcharging homeowners and developers. It claims the city
charged fees inconsistent with the impact of development, that
there are inaccuracies in the way the fees were calculated and that
planned future projects were erroneously included in setting fees.
Attorneys with the Laird Cowley of Missoula and the Odegaard
Kovacich Snipes of Great Falls are representing the plaintiffs.
WHITEFISH CITY officials in September 2021 admitted they made an
error in calculating impact fees that likely resulted in
overcharges for new developments and planned to issue refunds
accordingly.
City Manager Dana Smith at the time acknowledged that city staff
made an error that likely resulted in overcharges, saying the city
would review its records to determine refunds.
The error was initially revealed after Whitefish residents Paul
Gillman and Bill Burg brought forward concerns about the city's
calculation of impact fees after Gillman began examining the impact
fees after looking at constructing a home addition.
The plaintiffs in the case say that the city, at the time the
lawsuit was filed in February, had not yet refunded the fees they
claim were not properly collected.
During the City Council meeting on Feb. 22, Smith addressed the
impact fee issue, saying that the city is completing an audit of
its impact fees for building permits between Jan. 1, 2019 and July
31, 2021, and issuing refunds accordingly.
"Those funds will be remitted back to the property owners, not the
developers or the contractors, because state law does call that out
very specifically that it goes back to the property owner when the
refund is due," Smith said. "We have sought legal counsel and
through our auditors that a refund would be due when it's estimable
and actually found. It makes sense from a financing perspective in
that the property owner paid a higher cost for the build or the
purchase of the home that the impact fee would be included in the
cost to purchase."
Smith said the average refund for those who were affected by the
error is estimated to be about $700 to $850. The total amount
expected to be refunded to those with past building permits is
estimated to be $133,000, she added.
Refunds have already been issued to those with current building
permits and those refunds totaled $63,000, she noted.
DESPITE THE city saying it will issue refunds, Mark Kovacich, one
of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, said refunding the
amount overcharged for the fees doesn't account for the
miscalculations that are behind the fees.
"We filed the lawsuit because we want to make sure that people who
paid the fees are repaid because they paid an improper amount," he
said. "The city's calculations fall short of what they should
receive."
In addition, Kovacich said the city should be issuing refunds to
the holder of the building permits rather than the current property
owner because that is the individual who paid the fees.
"They've indicated that repayment in all cases will go to the
current property owner, but in many cases, the building permit
application is no longer the owner," he said. "This is a
substantial sum of money we're talking about per applicant and all
of the overcharges amount to a large figure."
City Attorney Angela Jacobs says the city is following state law by
issuing refunds to the property owners and not those who were
issued the building permits.
"We have acknowledged that we made a clerical error and we're
working to audit our records to provide refunds, that's just taking
time," she said. "The impact fees were created based upon what was
provided to us by our consultant and we trust that was done
correctly."
THE LAWSUIT alleges several complaints against the city regarding
its impact fees.
The city in 2018 hired FCS Group, a utility rate consulting
company, to study and provide an update on the maximum impact fee
rate it can lawfully charge for the impacts of development. The
lawsuit alleges that city officials used a report by FCS and a
previous study to establish impact fee rates, but in doing so began
charging fee rates that exceed the actual impacts of new
development on water and water services.
The suit goes on to claim that the city in 2018 altered its impact
fee assessment program in a way that water fixture unit counts on
new development projects were inflated. The city calculates its
water and wastewater impact fee rates based upon planned water
meter size and the number of water fixture units in a project.
The suit says the city requires all plumbing and water fixtures to
conform to the requirements of the International Association of
Plumbing and Mechanical Officials Uniform Plumbing Code, but
allegedly assigns certain fixtures to a higher and more costly
category than what is set by the plumbing code, and also requires
larger water meter sizes than the code does.
As a result of what the plaintiffs say is an erroneous method for
counting water fixture units, the city has been charging impact fee
rates that exceed the actual impacts of new development or remodels
have on water and wastewater services in the city.
THE LAWSUIT also claims that the city improperly based fees on
future capital improvements projects that have since changed or are
no longer planned, and improperly calculated the impact of one such
project.
One of the projects included in the city's calculations for
determining impact fees was an $8.4 million project dubbed the
South Water Reservoir. But the lawsuit claims that little or no
money has been spent on the project and yet the city continues to
make changes to the project rendering it unlawful to be included in
calculating fees.
In addition, the lawsuit also points out that the city used a
planned $4 million solar array project for supplying electricity at
the wastewater treatment plant to increase impact fee rates, but
the project has since allegedly been scrapped entirely.
Finally, the suit claims a projected $10 million cost to upgrade
the water treatment plant was incorrectly factored into fees when
the impact was not calculated to reflect that the cost would be
spread out among more future users.
THE LAWSUIT claims the city violated the taking clause of the Fifth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that says, "[N]or shall private
property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
It also says that the city violated state law regarding impact fee
rules and that the city was negligent based on state law and the
Constitution in not taking reasonable care in calculating and
imposing impact fee rates, and that it misrepresented itself
regarding the fees thus allegedly causing the plaintiffs to suffer
monetary damages.
The plaintiffs are asking that the city's resolutions regarding
impact fees be found unlawful and that refunds be paid to those who
paid impact fees above what is allowed under U.S. and state law. In
addition, they are seeking payment of their attorneys' fees.
AFTER THE City Council in 2019 passed resolutions regarding the
matter, Whitefish twice set new, higher impact fee rates for the
infrastructure areas it collects fees for, including water and
wastewater services.
Impact fees can be used for public improvements and to recoup the
costs from such previously incurred by the city. Under state law,
cities are required to review and update impact fee studies every
five years.
Whitefish has been charging impact fees since 2007.
A class action lawsuit means that the plaintiffs have filed a
lawsuit for themselves but also on behalf of others who may have
applied for building permits with the city. [GN]
WYNDHAM VACATION: Class Cert. Briefing Sched Continued in Ramirez
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OLIVIA ROSE RAMIREZ and
KRYSTAL PECORARO, as individuals and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 2:20-cv-03528-CJC-JC
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Cormac J. Carney Judge entered an order
granting joint stipulation to continue class certification briefing
schedule and other deadlines as follows:
Event Current New
Deadline Deadline
--Deadline to File and Have July 25, 2022 Oct. 24, 2022
Motion for Class
Certification Heard:
--Deadline to Complete Sept. 22, 2022 Dec. 21, 2022
Discovery, and to File
and Have Discovery Motions
Heard:
--Deadline to File and Have Nov. 21, 2022 Feb. 21, 2023
All Other Motions Heard:
--Pre-Trial Conference: Jan. 23, 2023 April 24, 2023
--Jury Trial Jan. 31, 2023 May 2, 2023
A copy of the Court's order dated March 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ul11a3 at no extra charge.[CC]
XL FLEET: Request for Pre-Motion Conference Due Jan. 12, 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit In XL Fleet Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-02002-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Lorna G. Schofield entered an order that the deadline for
Plaintiffs to request a pre-motion conference regarding their
planned motion for class certification is January 12, 2023.
The Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order was issued
March 7, 2022. The Order set a deadline for the Plaintiffs to
request a pre-motion conference regarding their planned motion for
class certification no later than January 13, 2022.
XL Fleet provides vehicle electrification solutions for commercial
and municipal fleets.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uk0Mw6 at no extra charge.[CC]
YOUTH ON THE MOVE: Burgos FLSA Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ADIANEL BURGOS and HECTOR MARTINEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YOUTH ON THE
MOVE, INC. and JANICE BROWN, Case No. 2279CV00100, was removed from
the Superior Court Department of the Trial Court of Hampden County,
Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on March 23, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 3:22-cv-30031 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay wages
for all hours worked and failure to pay overtime for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Massachusetts General Laws.
Youth On The Move, Inc. is a transportation service provider in
Springfield, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Erica E. Flores, Esq.
SKOLER, ABBOTT & PRESSER, P.C.
One Monarch Place, Suite 2000
Springfield, MA 01144
Telephone: (413) 737-4753
Facsimile: (413) 787-1941
E-mail: eflores@skoler-abbott.com
ZIONS BANCORP: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due June 29
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA LEE SIPPLE, ON
BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. ZIONS
BANCORPORATION, N.A., Case No. 2:21-cv-00904-GMN-NJK (D. Nev.), the
Hon. Judge Nancy J. Koppe entered an amended stipulation and order
to extend deadlines in scheduling order as follows:
Event Date
-- Discovery Cut-off Date: Dec. 29, 2022
-- Amending the Pleadings and Sept. 28, 2022
Adding Parties:
-- Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D)(i) Oct. 28, 2022
Disclosures (Experts):
-- Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) Nov. 28, 2022
Disclosures (Rebuttal):
-- Deadline to file motion for June 29, 2022
class certification:
-- Deadline to file response to Aug. 28, 2022
motion for class certification:
-- Deadline to file reply in support Oct. 13, 2022
of motion for class certification:
-- Dispositive Motions: Jan. 28, 2023
-- Pretrial Order: Feb. 28, 2023
Zions Bancorporation is a bank holding company headquartered in
Salt Lake City, Utah. Zions Bancorporation originated as Keystone
Insurance and Investment Co., a Utah Corporation, in April 1955.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3quTPqJ at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
1 West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
E-mail: alperstein@kolawyers.com
- and -
Burak S. Ahmed, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BURAK S. AHMED, P.C.
3651 Lindell Road, Suite D812
Las Vegas, NE 89103
Telephone: (702) 934-4766
Facsimile: (702) 852-0970
E-mail: bsa@burakahmed.com
ZWIFT INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zwift, Inc. The case
is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Zwift, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02347
(S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Zwift -- https://www.zwift.com/ -- is a massively multiplayer
online cycling and running physical training program that enables
users to interact, train and compete in a virtual world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
[*] Financial Sector No Longer Australia's Biggest Suit Target
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allens disclosed that the financial sector is no longer the biggest
target for class action filings for the first time in more than a
decade, new data from Allens' Class Action Risk 2022 report shows.
Data from 2021 shows the banking and financial sector was the third
biggest target for new class action filings (down to 17% from 32%
in 2020), after more than ten years managing heightened risk due to
the fall out of the global financial crisis and a royal commission.
The government sector was the biggest target (21% of filings up
from 13% in 2020), with a broad range of claims filed against state
and federal governments in 2021.
'We're seeing class action risk change, including a distinct change
in class action claim targets. The number of filings against the
banking and financial sector is tailing off after a long period in
the spotlight, with the government and healthcare sectors now
facing the most claims in 2021.
'It's an interesting shift, and appears to feed into a broader
trend showing a growing range of types of claims across the class
action landscape,' said partner Jenny Campbell.
Overall, class action claims were down 13% over the year, but the
short to medium term trend is for markedly increased filings
compared to five years ago. Consumer claims were the most common
type (23%) while shareholder claims - once the most common - have
fallen to their lowest levels in a decade (15%).
Underscoring these shifts is a growing environment of uncertainty
for litigation funding. Against a backdrop of recent reforms
impacting litigation funders, the Federal Government took steps to
further increase the regulation of the Australian funding market.
'Two words describe the litigation funding environment over the
last couple of years - reform and uncertainty. The impact of this
is seen in the marked decline in the level of shareholder claims
and directly funded claims over the last two years. That
uncertainty lingers with recent class action funding bill before
Federal Parliament, which we expect will not be resolved until
after the election,' said partner Belinda Thompson.
For the year ahead, the report predicts consumer claims to dominate
further, giving rise to new and emerging issues in a broader range
of consumer-facing sectors. Claims relating to climate change and
privacy and data breaches are also areas to watch over the next
year.
The annual Allens Class Action Risk report has been providing
insight into the most current indicators and drivers of class
action risk since 2015. Explore data from Class Action Risk 2022.
[GN]
[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Register Now
------------------------------------------------------------------
Beard Group, Inc. is hosting the 6th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference in NYC on Monday, May 2nd.
Sponsorship opportunities are currently available.
Showcase your firm's expertise on a panel in front of 150+ class
action attorneys, general counsel, litigation financiers,
consultants, claims administrators, reporters and academics.
For sponsorship options and details, contact:
Bernard Toliver, CMP
Tel: (240) 629-3300 ext. 149
E-mail: bernard@beardgroup.com
For more conference information, visit us at
https://www.classactionconference.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 ***