/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220414.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, April 14, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 69
Headlines
ANTOJITOS FOOD: Faces Alvarez Suit Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
ARCIMOTO INC: CEO Faces Carranza Suit in New York
ARCIMOTO INC: CEO Faces Laguerre Shareholder Suit in Oregon
ARCIMOTO INC: Faces Barnette Securities Suit
ARCIMOTO INC: Faces Gibson Shareholder Suit in NY Court
ATBCOIN LLC: Class Settlement in Balestra Suit Gets Prelim. Nod
B.L. KANODE: Court Tosses Watson's Bid for Class Certification
BEEKMAN 1802 INC: Rudy Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
BOTTLED SCIENCE: Bell Suit Removed to C.D. California
BRIDE BOX: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Tavarez-Vargas
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Class Cert Hearing Rescheduled to May 23
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Extended
CORIZON HEALTH: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to July 1
DOLLAR N DISCOUNT: Valle Sues Over Store Clerks' Unpaid Wages
ELTON CORP: Court Denies Bids for Summary Judgment in Wright Suit
HEALTHCARE FINANCE: Amaral Sues Over Unsolicited Calls
HEARTLAND EXPRESS: June 2 Continuance of Class Cert. Bid Sought
HUMANA INC: Harris Files FCRA Suit in M.D. Florida
JSG BABYFOOD: Vasquez de Maldonado Files Baby Food Mislabeling Suit
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Long Files Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
KELLY TOYS: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
KETO CHOW: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KIRKLAND'S STORES: Miles Loses Class Certification Bid
KOI KOKORO: Faces Villelas Suit Over Line Cooks' Unpaid Wages
KULI KULI INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
L3HARRIS TECH: Parties Directed to Confer on Class Cert Deadlines
LANGUAGE LINE: Rouse Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
MATCH GROUP: Bid to Extend Time to File Response OK'd
MDL 2744: Bid to Exclude Strombom Opinion Granted in Gearshift Suit
MIAMI BAY BEVERAGE: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MINT JULEP BOUTIQUE: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MORINAGA NUTRITIONAL: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Extended to Oct. 28
NAVIENT CORP: Tentative Agreements to Settle Suits Reached
NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEW YORK TIMES: Nashel Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Information
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: De Leon Seeks to Certify Class, Subclass
NEW YORK, NY: Leslie, Burgos Seek to Certify Class
NORTH AMERICAN CREDIT: Temples Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection
NYKO TECHNOLOGIES: Ambriz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
OHIO LIVING: Preliminary Pretrial Order Entered in Kordie Suit
OLYMPIA DEVELOPMENT: Wilkinson Sues Over Illegal Parking Tickets
OPPORTUNITY FINANCIAL: Johnson Files RICO Suit in E.D. Virginia
PAN AMERICAN: Refusal to Dismiss Claim in Rodriguez Suit Upheld
PDS BIOTECHNOLOGY: Rosener Files Notice of Voluntary Suit Dismissal
PJ NATIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Washington Suit Alleges
PORTLAND GENERAL: Settlement in PERSM Suit Gets Final Nod
PROCOLLECT INC: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to June 16
QG PRINTING: Seeks Reconsideration of March 4 Order
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Klugman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
RECON OILFIELD: Klees Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SILVERBACK THERAPEUTICS: Faces Dresner Shareholder Suit
SITEL GROUP: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SMG HOLDINGS: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in McCarty Suit
SPIRALEDGE INC: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Class of First-Time Fliers in Cox Suit Certified
ST. LOUIS, MO: Seeks to Defer Class Certification Bid Response
STERLING BANCORP: Settlement Deal in OPPRS Suit Wins Final Nod
SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY: Durbeck, Foti Seek to Certify Class of Students
SUNRUN INC: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Tavarez Class Suit
SYGMA NETWORK: Clow Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
TAPESTRY INC: Court Strikes Class Allegations in Downing Suit
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: Hines Files Suit in Tex. Sup. Ct.
TFORCE LOGISTICS: Seeks Denial of Lim Class Certification Bid
TURTLE ISLAND: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UNILEVER UNITED: Seeks to Vacate May 23 Settlement Conference
UNITED STATES: Seeks May 20 Extension to File Class Cert Response
URGENT COMPANY: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VAN LEEUWEN ICE CREAM: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VILLAGE SUPER: Rodriguez-Mendez Seeks Conditional Collective Status
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: McMahon Files Suit in D. New Jersey
WALGREENS BOOTS: Faces Class Suit Over Rite-Aid Merger
WALGREENS BOOTS: Faces Shareholder Suit in IL Court
WDI INTERNATIONAL: Faces Liang Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
WELLS FARGO: Fails to Protect Customers From Scam, Stock Says
WOW MEDIA: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ZWANGER & PESIRI: Class Discovery Stayed in Sali Suit
*********
ANTOJITOS FOOD: Faces Alvarez Suit Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JANNET VILLAR ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANTOJITOS FOOD SUPPLY COMPANY (DBA
ANTOJITOS FOOD SUPPLY) YUDELCA BATISTA and JOEL DIAZ, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02815 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2022) is a class action
for Defendants' unpaid minimum wages and overtime wage orders
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the
New York Labor Law and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage
orders of the New York Commission of Labor including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
October 2020 until March 2022. She was primarily hired to prepare
snacks for Defendants' catering style restaurant.
Antojitos Food Supply Company owns, operates, and controls a
catering-style restaurant under the name "Antojitos Food
Supply."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
ARCIMOTO INC: CEO Faces Carranza Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------
Arcimoto, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 31, 2022, that that the company's
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of
Directors, Mark Frohnmayer, is defendant in a shareholder
derivative lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York captioned "Carranza v. Frohnmayer
et al.," Case No. 21-cv-03888 filed on July 9, 2021.
Said action was consolidated on August 4, 2021 as "In re Arcimoto,
Inc. Derivative Litigation." This derivative action is currently
stayed.
Arcimoto, Inc. is into the development of sustainable
transportation systems using technologies, platforms, and vehicles
aimed squarely at rightsizing daily mobility.
ARCIMOTO INC: CEO Faces Laguerre Shareholder Suit in Oregon
-----------------------------------------------------------
Arcimoto, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 31, 2022, that the company's
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of
Directors, Mark Frohnmayer, is defendant in a shareholder
derivative lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Oregon captioned "Laguerre v. Frohnmayer et al."
Case No. 21-cv-00982 filed on June 30, 2021.
Arcimoto, Inc. is into the development of sustainable
transportation systems using technologies, platforms, and vehicles
aimed squarely at rightsizing daily mobility.
ARCIMOTO INC: Faces Barnette Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------
Arcimoto, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 31, 2022, that the company, its
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of
Directors, Mark Frohnmayer, and its Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer, Douglas Campoli, have been sued in a putative class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York captioned "Barnette v. Arcimoto, Inc. et al.," Case No.
21-cv-02143 filed on April 19, 2021.
Said class action purported to be on behalf of all those who
purchased the company's common stock between February 14, 2018 and
March 22, 2021. This was consolidated as "In re Arcimoto, Inc.
Securities Litigation," Case No. 21-cv-02143 on July 14, 2021, and
a consolidated amended complaint was filed on September 20, 2021.
Briefing on the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint was completed on March 11, 2022. No motion to
certify a class has been filed at this time.
Arcimoto, Inc. is into the development of sustainable
transportation systems using technologies, platforms, and vehicles
aimed squarely at rightsizing daily mobility.
ARCIMOTO INC: Faces Gibson Shareholder Suit in NY Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Arcimoto, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 31, 2022, that the company, its
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of
Directors, Mark Frohnmayer, and its Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer, Douglas Campoli, have been sued in a putative class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York captioned "Gibson v. Arcimoto, Inc. et al.," Case No.
21-cv-02870 filed in May 20, 2021.
Said class action purported to be on behalf of all those who
purchased the company's common stock between February 14, 2018 and
March 22, 2021. This was consolidated as "In re Arcimoto, Inc.
Securities Litigation," Case No. 21-cv-02143 on July 14, 2021, and
a consolidated amended complaint was filed on September 20, 2021.
Briefing on the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint was completed on March 11, 2022. No motion to
certify a class has been filed at this time.
Arcimoto, Inc. is into the development of sustainable
transportation systems using technologies, platforms, and vehicles
aimed squarely at rightsizing daily mobility.
ATBCOIN LLC: Class Settlement in Balestra Suit Gets Prelim. Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAYMOND BALESTRA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATBCOIN LLC, EDWARD NG, and
HERBERT W. HOOVER, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-10001 (VSB)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York:
(i) granted the Lead Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval of the proposed class action settlement; and
(ii) denied the Lead Plaintiff's motion to enforce the
settlement without prejudice to renewal.
I. Introduction
Lead Plaintiff Balestra brought the putative class action against
Defendants ATBCOIN LLC ("ATB"), Edward Ng, and Herbert W. Hoover
for violations of Sections 12(a)(1) and 15(a), 15 U.S.C. Sections
77l(a)(1) & 77o(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act").
Before the Court are (1) the Lead Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
(i) preliminary approval of a class settlement agreement, (ii)
conditional certification of the proposed class, (iii) approval of
the proposed notice of the settlement, (iv) appointment of the
claims administrator, and (v) approval of other procedures and
deadlines; as well as (2) the Lead Plaintiff's unopposed motion to
enforce the settlement agreement.
II. Factual Background and Procedural History
Defendants Hoover and Ng co-founded Defendant ATB, a cryptocurrency
start-up that raised more than $20 million during the summer of
2017 as part of an initial coin offering ("ICO") for a
cryptocurrency called "ATB Coins." Lead Plaintiff Balestra bought
388.5 ATB Coins for $690.66. By March 11, 2018, the value of the
Lead Plaintiff's ATB Coins had decreased by more than 85%.
The Lead Plaintiff brought the putative class action against the
Defendants for violating Section 12(a) of the Securities Act by
offering and selling unregistered securities in the form of ATB
Coins, and against Ng and Hoover for violating Section 15(a) of the
Securities Act as "control persons" of ATB.
On April 13, 2018, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
action. On March 31, 2019, Judge Broderick denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss and granted Balestra's motion for appointment as
the Lead Plaintiff and for approval of his selection of the Lead
Counsel.
On Dec. 3, 2019, the parties reported that they had reached a
tentative settlement agreement, and on Feb. 27, 2020, they informed
Judge Broderick that they were preparing a stipulation of
settlement. On April 10, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed an
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement. The agreement provided that Defendants would create a
$250,000 settlement fund.
However, on May 12, 2020, the Defendants' counsel filed a letter
informing Judge Broderick that "unfortunately, due to a change in
circumstances, the Defendants will not be able to fund the
settlement." The Defendants' counsel further informed the Court
that Defendant Hoover had terminated his services, and Defendant Ng
had also advised him that he could not afford legal representation
for himself or Defendant ATB. As a result, Defendants' counsel
sought leave to file a motion to withdraw as counsel. In response,
on June 16, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed a "motion to enforce"
the settlement agreement. Following a court conference on July 8,
2020, the Defendants' counsel filed a motion to withdraw.
On Aug. 5, 2020, Judge Broderick held another court conference.
During the conference, the Defendants' counsel represented that he
would provide the email addresses for Hoover and Ng to the
Plaintiff's counsel and to the Court, and the Defendants' counsel
did so later that day. After the conference, Judge Broderick issued
an order granting the Defendants' counsel's motion to withdraw.
He further ordered the Defendants to file a letter on the docket by
Aug. 28, 2020: (1) indicating whether they intend to retain
counsel; (2) opposing, if they so desire, the motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement, and the motion to enforce
the settlement; and (3) indicating whether they intend to remain in
the settlement, abide by the terms of the settlement, and fund the
settlement. He also ordered the Defendants "to inform the pro se
office of their contact information and file a notice of appearance
on the docket." Judge Broderick further advised the Defendants that
because ATB is a corporate entity, it could not appear in federal
court without being represented by the counsel. Finally, he ordered
the Lead Plaintiff to file supplemental briefing addressing
questions he had raised during the Aug. 5, 2020 conference, which
the Lead Plaintiff did.
The Defendants never filed any letter on the docket addressing the
questions in Aug. 7, 2020 order, and never informed the pro se
office of their contact information or filed a notice of appearance
on the docket.
III. Discussion
A. Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Settlement
Judge Broderick conditionally approves the Settlement Agreement,
finding that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate. He has reviewed the proposed Settlement Agreement, and he
finds that it is the result of arm's length negotiation between the
parties, who were, at the time, both represented by experienced and
sophisticated counsel. He further finds that the proposed $250,000
settlement amount is within the range of approval considering the
risks in proving liability.
B. Conditional Certification of the Proposed Class
In order to certify a class for settlement purposes, a court must
find that the class satisfies all four requirements under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(a) -- numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy
of representation -- and one of the requirements listed under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(b). Moreover, under Rule 23(b)(3), a class must
satisfy the "predominance" requirement, "that the questions of law
or fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members," and the "superiority"
requirement, "that a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy."
Judge Broderick opines that (i) an estimate of "thousands" of class
members is sufficient to satisfy the numerosity requirement; (ii)
common questions include, but are not limited to: "whether the
Defendants' alleged conduct violated the federal securities laws;"
whether ATB Coin "qualifies as a security;" "whether the Defendants
sold unregistered securities;" and "whether Defendants Ng and
Hoover acted as control persons of ATB"; (iii) each class member's
claim arises from the same course of events, and each class member
makes similar legal arguments to prove the Defendant's liability;
(iv) the Court already found Balestra to be an adequate Lead
Plaintiff and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP to be an adequate Lead Counsel;
(v) common questions of law and fact predominate over individual
questions because the Defendants' alleged unlawful offering of
securities affected all the Settlement Class Members in the same
manner; and (vi) the Lead Counsel represents that there is no
reason to believe that any individual class members wish to bring
their own lawsuits, and that without a class-wide release, the
Defendants would have minimal incentive to settle.
As such, Judge Broderick certifies the Settlement Class for
settlement purposes only. He also conditionally certifies the Lead
Plaintiff as the class representative and conditionally appoint
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as the Lead Counsel for the Settlement
Class.
C. Approval of Class Notice
Judge Broderick concludes that the notice proposed by the Plaintiff
satisfies all of the requirements under Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and the
PSLRA. Since the "Defendants have informed counsel for the
Plaintiffs that they are unlikely to have names, e-mails, or
physical addresses for potential class members," the Lead Plaintiff
intends to publish the notice on a national wire service, on the
Lead Counsel's firm website, on a leading blockchain news and media
outlet called CoinDesk.com, and on a Reddit forum dedicated to ATB
Coin. Judge Broderick concludes that the notification plan
constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances,
and meets the requirements of due process.
D. Appointment of Claims Administrator
In addition, Judge Broderick appoints Strategic Claims Services as
the claims administrator. Strategic Claims is "an established and
experienced claims administrator." It is accustomed to being
approved by courts in the Circuit and District to provide notice of
the settlement and claim processing services.
E. Motion to Enforce
In response to the Defendants' counsel's assertion that the
Defendants cannot afford to pay the settlement, the Lead Plaintiff
filed a "motion to enforce the class action settlement." He cites
to New York and Second Circuit law to argue that the Settlement
Agreement is a binding, enforceable contract. He argues that the
Defendants have not -- and under the terms of the contract, cannot
-- oppose enforcement of the Settlement Agreement. The Lead
Plaintiff asks the Court to "grant Lead Plaintiff's Motion
enforcing the Settlement between the parties per the terms set out
in the Stipulation in full." He does not cite any specific federal
rule of civil procedure under which he brings his motion.
Judge Broderick opines that the Lead Plaintiff's arguments about
the enforceability of the settlement agreement are well-taken, but
procedurally inapposite. "There is nothing in the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure styled a motion to enforce. Nor is there approval
for such a motion to be found in the Circuit's case law." While it
is true that the Court retains jurisdiction over the Settlement
Agreement, it is unclear what exactly the Lead Plaintiff is asking
it to do. Therefore, Judge Broderick denies the Lead Plaintiff's
motion to enforce, but grants leave to renew.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Lead Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement is
granted, and his motion to enforce the settlement is denied without
prejudice to renewal.
Judge Broderick set the following settlement procedures:
(1) Within 31 business days of the date of the Order, the
Claims Administrator will mail the notice and claim form to the
Settlement Class Members.
(2) No later than 35 days before the fairness hearing, the
Lead Plaintiff will file a motion for final approval of the
Settlement Agreement, Plan of Allocation, and the Lead Counsel's
application for attorneys' fees and expenses.
(3) No later than 21 days before the fairness hearing, the
Settlement Class Members will file any requests for exclusion or
objections.
(4) No later than seven calendar days before the fairness
hearing, the Defendants will file any reply papers.
(5) No later than seven calendar days before the fairness
hearing, the Settlement Class Members will file any claim forms.
(6) The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on Aug. 30,
2022, at 3:00 p.m. via telephone, using the dial-in 888-363-4749
and the access code 2682448.
(7) The parties will abide by all terms of the Settlement
Agreement.
The Lead Plaintiff's counsel is further ordered to serve a copy of
the Order on Defendants Ng and Hoover by email to the addresses
provided by the Defendants' counsel on Aug. 5, 2020, and to file an
affidavit of such service within seven days of the Order.
The Defendants are further ordered to inform the pro se office of
their contact information and file a notice of appearance on the
docket within seven days of the Order.
The Clerk's Office is respectfully directed to terminate the open
gavels at Docs. 64 and 70.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y78mdr2u from Leagle.com.
B.L. KANODE: Court Tosses Watson's Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN A. WATSON, v. B.L.
KANODE, et al., Case No. 7:21-cv-00119-TTC-RSB (W.D. Va.), the
Hon. Judge Thomas T. Cullen entered an order denying Watson's
motion for counsel and his motion for class certification.
The Court said, "With regard to Watson's request for class
certification, a pro se plaintiff may not represent other
prisoners. Thus, Watson's request must be denied. If Watson finds
counsel willing to represent him and other inmates in a class
action, counsel may enter an appearance in the case. But the case
currently consists only of his claims, not anyone else's, and the
court concludes that Watson does not require court-appointed
counsel to continue to present his case. Moreover, Watson may not
bootstrap his request for counsel onto his request that this case
be a class action."
In this action, pro se plaintiff Kevin A. Watson asserts civil
rights claims against a correctional officials arising from his
incarceration at River North Correctional Center. After the court
gave him permission to do so, Watson filed a second amended
complaint, and the defendants' responses to it are not yet due.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jlVE5g at no extra charge.[CC]
BEEKMAN 1802 INC: Rudy Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beekman 1802, Inc.
The case is styled as Heather Rudy, Mary Collins Terry, Pamela
Swies, Verlinda Holloway, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Beekman 1802, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01787
(N.D. Ill., April 6, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Beekman soap -- https://beekman1802.com/ -- is scented with lush
botanicals like naturally-derived fruits and spices, including
orange peel, nutmeg, and black pepper.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (847) 208-4585
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
BOTTLED SCIENCE: Bell Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Richard Bell, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Bottled Science doing business as:
Skinade, Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV07754, was removed
from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on April 6, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02322-GW-MAA to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Bottled Science doing business as Skinade -- https://skinade.com/
-- is the gold standard among anti-aging collagen drinks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Evan Jason Smith, Esq.
Ryan P. Cardona, Esq.
BRODSKY SMITH LLC
9595 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 900
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (877) 534-2590
Fax: (310) 247-0160
Email: esmith@brodskysmith.com
rcardona@brodsky-smith.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Bradford G. Hughes, Esq.
Maryam Danishwar, Esq.
CLARK HILL PLC
555 South Flower Street, 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 417-5107
Fax: (213) 488-1178
Email: bhughes@clarkhill.com
MDanishwar@clarkhill.com
BRIDE BOX: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Tavarez-Vargas
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMEN TAVAREZ-VARGAS,
Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
THE BRIDE BOX, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-09995-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered a civil case management plan and
scheduling order as follows:
-- Any motion to amend or to join April 20, 2022
additional parties shall be filed
no later than:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed July 19, 2022
no later than:
-- All expert discovery, including July 19, 2022
reports, production of underlying
documents, and depositions, shall
be completed no later than:
-- Initial requests for production of April 20, 2022
documents shall be served by:
-- Plaintiff shall file a motion for August 18, 2022
class certification no later than:
-- Any opposition shall be filed by: September 19, 2022
-- Any reply shall be filed by: October 19, 2022
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Kshctd at no extra charge.[CC]
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Class Cert Hearing Rescheduled to May 23
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON WILLIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO., Case No. 2:19-cv-08542-JGB-RAO (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order that the hearing on
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and Colgate's motions to
exclude Plaintiff's expert witnesses and evidence shall be
continued from April 4, 2022 to May 23, 2022.
Colgate-Palmolive Company is an American multinational consumer
products company headquartered on Park Avenue in Midtown Manhattan,
New York City. It specializes in the production, distribution and
provision of household, health care, personal care and veterinary
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JvjDcW at no extra charge.[CC]
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Extended
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIK BLAIR, on behalf of
himself and similarly situated employees, v. COMPREHENSIVE
HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, ET AL., Case No.
2:18-cv-00254-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge William S. Stickman
entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion for extension
of class certification briefing schedule and expert discovery
deadlines.
-- a 30-day extension is granted for Defendants' Brief in
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification,
until April 21, 2022;
-- The Plaintiffs' Reply, until May 9, 2022;
-- The expert deposition deadline, until April 25, 2022; and
-- The expert discovery deadline until May 2, 2022.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uZD3S6 at no extra charge.[CC]
CORIZON HEALTH: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to July 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE MORRELLI, et al., v.
CORIZON HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-01395-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.),
the Court entered an order that the class certification motion
filing deadline, currently set for April 8, 2022, shall be extended
to July 1, 2022.
On March 21, 2022, the parties attended an informal status
conference via videoconference before the Court to discuss the
upcoming class certification motion filing deadline.
Daniel Kopfman appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Barbara Blackburn
and Wesley Stockard appeared on behalf of Defendant. At the
conference, the parties 21 informed the Court of the status of
ongoing settlement discussions, and requested additional time to
file the class certification motion.
The Court finds good cause to grant the requested modification.
Corizon Health, formed by a 2011 merger of Correctional Medical
Services, Inc. and Prison Health Services, Inc., is a privately
held prison healthcare contractor in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37wpaTm at no extra charge.[CC]
DOLLAR N DISCOUNT: Valle Sues Over Store Clerks' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA VALLE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOLLAR N DISCOUNT LLC (DBA REAL DEAL DOLLAR
& DISCOUNT STORE) MOHAMMAD SIDDIQUE (AKA MOHAMMAD HASSAN or HASSAN
SIDDIQUE), Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01921 (E.D.N.Y., April 5,
2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff for federal and
state claims relating to unpaid overtime wages, unpaid
spread-of-hours wages and failure to maintain records pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and related
provisions from Title 12 of the New York Codes, Rules and
Regulations.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants who was hired as a
store clerk responsible for receiving deliveries and cleaning the
premises for the Dollar Store.
Dollar N Discount LLC, dba Real Deal, is a chain of Dollar stores
located in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
ELTON CORP: Court Denies Bids for Summary Judgment in Wright Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOSEPH WRIGHT, and T. KIMBERLY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants v. ELTON CORPORATION, GREGORY FIELDS,
FIRST REPUBLIC TRUST COMPANY OF DELAWARE LLC, and M.C. DUPONT CLARK
EMPLOYEES PENSION TRUST, Defendants/Counter-claimants/Third-party
Plaintiffs v. JAMES B. WYETH, Solely as Executor and Personal
Representative of the Estate of Phyllis M. Wyeth, MARY MILLS ABEL
SMITH, CHRISTOPHER T. DUPONT, MICHAEL DUPONT, LUCY DUNNE,
representative for HELENA DUPONT WRIGHT, KATHARINE D. GAHAGAN and
JAMES MILLS, Third-party Defendants, C.A. No. 17-286-JFB 9 (D.
Del.), Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware issued a Memorandum and Order denying:
a. Plaintiff Kimberly Williams' motion for summary judgment;
b. third-party Plaintiffs First Republic Trust Company of
Delaware LLC's, M.C. DuPont Clark Employees' Pension
Trust's ("Trust Defendants") motion for summary judgment;
c. third-party Defendants' Katharine D. Gahagan, James Mills,
Mary Mills Abel Smith, Helena Dupont Wright, James B.
Wyeth, Phyllis M. Wyeth, and Christopher T. duPont's
("Grandchildren") motion to strike;
d. the Trust Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment;
e. the Grandchildren's motion for summary judgment; and
f. the Trust Defendants' and Grandchildren's' joint motion to
sever.
I. Procedural History
The action involves a Trust, known as the Mary Chichester duPont
Clark Pension Trust (the "Trust"), that was created to provide
retirement benefits to household employees of the duPont family,
including those working for the grandchildren of the Trust's
Settlor, Mary Chichester duPont. Originally, two of the
grandchildren, Helena duPont Wright and James Mills, sued Elton
Corporation ("Elton Corp.") and Gregory Fields, who were then
alleged to be trustees of the Trust, in the District of Maryland
alleging, among other things, that the Defendants improperly
operated the Trust and mishandled the Trust's assets in violation
of Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C.
Section 1132(a)(3), amended complaint.
In their second amended complaint, the Plaintiffs, characterizing
themselves as employers and plan administrators, added their two
employees, Kimberley Williams and Joseph Wright, as plaintiffs and
added First Republic Trust Co. of Delaware, the successor trustee,
as a defendant. The district court in Maryland granted the
Defendant's motion to dismiss for improper venue and transferred
the action to the Court.
Defendant First Republic then filed protective counterclaims
against Plaintiffs Helen DuPont Wright and James Mills and brought
a third-party complaint against the other then-living
Grandchildren/Employers: Mrs. Abel Smith, Christopher duPont,
Michael duPont, Phyllis M. Wyeth, and Mrs. Gahagan, seeking a
declaratory judgment that each of them is separately liable to fund
the Plan as required by ERISA if the Trust is an ERISA plan.
The Court bifurcated the case to determine first whether ERISA
governed the Trust, then, if so, whether ERISA violations occurred.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the first
issue and the Court held that that the Plan is an ERISA plan and
that the plaintiffs Williams and Joseph Wright are participants in
the Plan.
The Trust Defendants moved for entry of final judgment on, and/or
to sever, the discrete legal claim "that the Trust is governed by
ERISA," in order to enable an immediate appeal to the Third
Circuit. The Grandchildren joined in that motion and also requested
certification of an interlocutory appeal. The Court denied those
requests. The Trust Defendants and the Grandchildren also filed
cross-motions for summary judgment and or judgment as to the Trust
Defendants' third-party claim. The Court denied those motions as
premature, pending discovery.
Later, the Trust Defendants again moved to clarify or stay the
Court's determination that the Trust was governed by ERISA. The
Court denied that motion, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
dismissed an appeal of the order for lack of jurisdiction.
In December 2020, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion for leave
to file a third amended complaint adding the Grandchildren as
defendants and asserting class action allegations, holding that
"the action can be properly disposed of as it is presently
configured." It noted that the relief afforded in the action will
apply to all plan participants even without class certification.
Thereafter, in April 2021, the Court granted a motion to dismiss
Mrs. Wright's and Mr. Mills' claims without prejudice. Those
parties remain in the case as defendants as to the third-party
claim.
The matter is before the Court on the following motions: Plaintiff
Williams' motion for summary judgment; the Trust Defendants' motion
for summary judgment; the Grandchildren's motion to strike; the
Trust Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment; the
Grandchildren's motion for summary judgment; and the Trust
Defendants' and Grandchildren's' joint motion to sever.
II. Analysis
A. Plaintiff Kimberly Williams's Motion for summary judgment
against the Trust Defendants and the third-party defendant
Grandchildren; the Trust Defendants' cross motion for summary
judgment; and the Grandchildren's motion to strike
1. Parties' Positions
Williams contends she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on
her claims that the Defendants underfunded the Trust, failed to
provide mandated notices to participants, engaged in prohibited
actions, and breached their fiduciary duties. She seeks a
declaration that the Trust Defendants and the
employer/Grandchildren are fiduciaries and breached their fiduciary
duties. The remedy she seeks is for the Court to remove First
Republic Trust Company of Delaware as trustee and appoint an
independent fiduciary, she also seeks an accounting and a
surcharge.
In opposition to Williams' motion and in their cross-motion, the
Trust Defendants argue that Williams lacks Constitutional standing
for all claims other than her claim for reformation of the trust,
that Defendants Elton Corp. and First Republic Trust cannot be held
liable for the duties and obligations of the employers (Plan
Sponsors and plan administrators); that Williams' claim against
defendant Elton Corp is barred by the statute of limitations; that
Defendant Gregory fields acted only as an agent and cannot be held
individually responsible; that there is no evidence of damages;
that Defendants Elton Corp. and First Republic, as trustees are not
required to determine, calculate or otherwise seek to collect
contributions to the trust if is underfunded; that Williams's
demand for removal of First Republic is incredulous in light of her
opposition to its motion for removal; and that Williams' belated
claim for failing to tax qualify the trust fails to state a claim.
In response to Williams' motion for summary judgment, the
grandchildren move to strike the motion, alleging that the pleading
is improper since Williams has not asserted any claims against
them. The pleading is more properly viewed as an opposition to the
motion for summary judgment. The Grandchildren argue that they are
not named as defendants contend Williams's motion for summary
judgment on the issue of whether they are employers under ERISA is
an end run around the Court's order denying Williams leave to amend
her complaint to add them as party defendants. They argue that the
Plaintiff now seeks judgments against them for millions of dollars
based on never-before asserted claims.
In reply, Williams argues that her motion seeks relief from the
third-party Defendants as employers, plan administrators and
fiduciaries, consistent with the complaint and the Court's earlier
order. She also argues there is no cause under Rule 12(f) to strike
anything in the Plaintiff's summary judgment motion.
2. Discussion
Judge Bataillon finds the motions for summary judgment and the
motion to strike should be denied. The materials submitted by the
parties in support of and opposition to their motions does not
establish as a matter of law that either party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. There are issues of fact that need to
be resolved before the Court can make a finding that ERISA was
violated and/or can craft a remedy.
Judge Bataillon also finds that the Trust Defendants' argument that
Williams fails to have standing, lacks merit. The Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged an injury. Whether she can prove up her
damages is an issue for trial. Similarly, Judge Bataillon rejects
the Trust Defendants' statute of limitations argument. Whether the
damages, if any, need to be cut off at some point can be addressed
at trial. The issue of Defendant Fields' individual liability can
also be addressed at trial.
Judge Bataillon has reviewed the evidence submitted by the parties
and finds that genuine issues of fact preclude summary judgment.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the Trust
Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and the Grandchildren's
motion to strike will be denied.
B. The Trust Defendants' and The Grandchildren's cross motions
motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint (D.I. 412
and 414)
1. Parties' Positions
The Trust Defendants seek a declaratory judgment that the Qualified
Employers are "employers" within the meaning of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et
seq. ("ERISA") and that each of the Qualified Employers has an
obligation to contribute to the Trust to fund benefits for the
participants. They argue that the Court has already determined in
the Court's earlier order that: 1) the Trust is a single plan under
ERISA; 2) the Trust is a defined benefit plan; and 3) the Qualified
Employers, including the third-party defendants herein, are
employers under ERISA.
In response, the Grandchildren argue to the contrary -- they argue
that the Court's earlier ruling did not determine, either
explicitly or implicitly, that they are employers under ERISA. They
contend the Court made no findings and did not address the ERISA
requirement that the Grandchildren, as the purported ERISA
"employers" under the Trust, must have "established or maintained"
the plan and must have engaged in commerce in employing their
domestic employees within the meaning of ERISA. Also, they contend
the Court did not determine whether the Trust is a defined benefit
plan or a defined contribution plan. Accordingly, they argue that
the Trust Defendants have not shown they are entitled to summary
judgment.
Conversely, in their cross-motion, the Grandchildren argue they are
entitled to summary judgment for three independent, alternative
reasons: First, that ERISA does not authorize the Trust or Trustee
to bring any claims at all against the Grandchildren because it is
not attempting to sue for fiduciary breach under 29 U.S.C. Section
1132(a)(2) and because it does not seek "appropriate equitable
relief" under Section 1132(a)(3), but rather seeks a remedy at law.
Second, the Grandchildren argue that they have no obligation to
make funding contributions because they are exempt from the
statute's funding requirements under 29 U.S.C. Section 1081(a)(5),
which provides that "(5) a plan which has not at any time after
Sept. 2, 1974, provided for employer contributions" is exempt from
funding requirements. They also argue that requiring the
Grandchildren to fund the Trust would negate the express terms of
the trust instrument and the Settlor's intent because the Trust
does not require additional contributions. Third, they argue
ERISA's funding obligations do not apply because the Grandchildren
did not establish or maintain the trust and are not employers
engaged in commerce, in any industry affecting commerce, or in any
activity affecting commerce.
In reply, the Trust Defendants argue that the trust is a defined
benefit plan and that the exemption in Section 1081(a)(5) applies
only to individual accounts plans, not defined benefit plans. They
also argue the Grandchildren are employers under ERISA. They
further contend that the Trust Defendants' remaining arguments have
already been impliedly rejected by the Court in the first phase of
the action.
2. Discussion
Judge Bataillon first rejects the Grandchildren's argument that the
Trust defendants cannot maintain an action against them. A
fiduciary is allowed to "obtain other appropriate equitable relief"
to redress ERISA violations under Section 1132(a)(3). Section
1132(a)(3) authorizes the kinds of relief typically available in
equity and the Plaintiff and third-party plaintiff seek traditional
equitable remedies such as surcharge and reformation.
Because equitable relief is involved, Judge Bataillon requires full
development of the record to ascertain and understand the
relationships, duties, obligations, and responsibilities of both
the trustees and employers. He finds there are genuine issues of
fact on whether the qualified employers under the trust and the
trustees had fiduciary duties and breached them. Neither the
Trustees nor the Grandchildren have shown they are entitled to
summary judgment on the third-party claim.
C. The Trust Defendants' and Grandchildren's joint motion to sever
the third-party claim
In the joint motion to sever, the Trust Defendants and
Grandchildren jointly move to sever the third-party claim from the
trial of the Plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty. They
state that the Third-Party Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants
are in agreement that there are no factual issues in dispute that
are material to this Third Party Complaint. To that end, both
parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which
present the necessary legal issues for the Court to decide based on
the undisputed facts. Further, they contend that "all that remains
on the claim in the Third-Party Complaint is presentation of oral
argument on legal issues by the counsel."
As noted, Judge Bataillon finds that neither party is entitled to
summary judgment based on the materials submitted to the Court. The
statement that no facts are in dispute is questionable in view of
the parties' vigorous defense of their respective positions in
summary judgment briefing. Though the third-party claim may
ultimately be resolved as a matter of law, the determination of an
appropriate remedy must be based on resolution of underlying facts
and on application of law to those facts. The Court's
interpretation of the statute also requires examination of the
terms of the plan in the context of manifestations of the parties'
intent. The issues are interdependent and intertwined. Because this
is a bench trial, the concerns of these parties can be addressed
properly at trial when the Court can sort out conflicting evidence
and competing theories. Judge Bataillon finds the interest of
judicial economy dictates that the actions should be tried
together.
III. Disposition
Judge Bataillon denied (i) Plaintiff Kimberly Williams' motion for
summary judgment; (ii) the Trust Defendants' motion for summary
judgment; (iii) the Grandchildren's motion to strike portions of
Plaintiff Williams' motion for summary judgment; (iv) the Trust
Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment; (v) the
Grandchildren's Motion for Summary Judgment; and (vi) the Trust
Defendants' and Grandchildren's joint motion to sever. He denied as
moot the Grandchildren's motion to expedite and stay interim
deadlines.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/mry7y2a8 from Leagle.com.
HEALTHCARE FINANCE: Amaral Sues Over Unsolicited Calls
------------------------------------------------------
Marco Amaral, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HEALTHCARE FINANCE DIRECT, LLC, Case No. CACE-22-004391
(Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., March 25, 2022), is
brought against the Defendant as a result of the Defendant's
unsolicited telephonic sales calls in violation the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA").
To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in
telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior
express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Defendant's
telephonic sales calls have caused the Plaintiff and the Class
members harm, including violations of their statutory rights,
statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their
privacy. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and
statutory damages on behalf of himself and the Class members, and
any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
unlawful actions of Defendant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual that received the Defendant's
telephonic sales calls.
The Defendant is a technology platform and financial institution
that connects healthcare providers to consumers with pay-over-time
options and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: 305-479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
Christopher Gold, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Office: (786) 289-9471
Direct: (305) 975-3320
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
chris@edelsberglaw.com
HEARTLAND EXPRESS: June 2 Continuance of Class Cert. Bid Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGG FREITAS and RYAN 18
CALVERT, individually and on behalf of all others those similarly
situated, v. HEARTLAND EXPRESS, INC. of IOWA, Case No.
2:19-cv-00383-SAB (E.D. Wash.), the Parties stipulate, subject to
the approval of the Court, that the hearings on the motion for
conditional certification and the motion for class certification be
continued to June 2, 2022, or as soon thereafter as the Court is
available.
Heartland Express provides trucking services.
A copy of the Parties motion dated March 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vqz01B at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
Erika L. Nusser, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW
GROUP PLLC 936 N. 34th St, No. 300
Seattle, Washington 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
E-mail: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
enusser@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Joshua Konecky, Esq.
Nathan Piller, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
npiller@schneiderwallace.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Todd Reuter, Esq.
E-mail: todd.reuter@foster.com
FOSTER GARVEY PC
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 447-4400
Facsimile: (206) 447-9700
- and -
David R. Ongaro, Esq.
Joanne c. Chan, Esq.
ONGARO PC
1604 Union Street
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 433-3900
Facsimile: (415) 433-3950
E-mail: dongaro@ongaropc.com
jchan@ongaropc.com
HUMANA INC: Harris Files FCRA Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Humana, Inc. The case
is styled as Tranell Harris, on behalf of herself and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Humana, Inc., Case No.
8:22-cv-00707-SDM-CPT (M.D. Fla., March 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Humana Inc. -- https://www.humana.com/ -- is a for-profit American
health insurance company based in Louisville, Kentucky.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 337-7992
Fax: (813) 229-8712
Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
- and -
Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES P.C.
763 J Clyde Morris Blvd Ste 1-A
Newport News, VA 23601
Phone: (757) 930-3660
Fax: (757) 930-3662
Email: craig@clalegal.com
JSG BABYFOOD: Vasquez de Maldonado Files Baby Food Mislabeling Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Maria del Carmen Vasquez de Maldonado, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JSG Babyfood LLC
a/k/a JSG Organics LLC d/b/a HolleUSA, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-01920-LDH-RER (E.D.N.Y., April 5, 2022) seeks to remedy the
alleged deceptive and misleading business practices of the
Defendant with respect to the marketing and sale of its various
baby food products throughout the state of New York and the U.S. in
violation of New York General Business Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant did not list heavy metals
as an ingredient on its products' labels, nor do they warn of the
potential presence of heavy metals in its products. Instead, the
Defendant advertised its products on its website and on Amazon.com
as having "No detectable traces of heavy metals" and as being "Lead
Free."
As a result of these representations and omissions by Defendant,
Plaintiff and the Class Members purchased the products, and even
paid a premium for the products, based upon their representations.
Given that Plaintiff and the Class Members would not have purchased
the products had they known the truth and paid a premium for the
products based on Defendant's misrepresentations, Plaintiff and the
Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the price of the
products or premium paid, asserts the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the products during the years 2021 through
2022.
JSG Babyfood LLC, a/k/a JSG Organics LLC, d/b/a HolleUSA,
manufactures, markets, advertises, and distributes baby food
products throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Joseph Lipari, Esq.
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
David C. Magagna Jr., Esq.
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
1 Old Country Rd., Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Long Files Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE LONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUNIPER NETWORKS (US), INC.; and Does 1- 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22CV396562 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., April 6, 2022) alleges that Defendants have engaged in
a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the
California Labor Code, all of which contribute to Defendants'
deliberate unfair competition.
According to the complaint, the Defendants had a consistent policy
of violating state wage and hour laws by, among other things: (a)
failing to pay all wages for all hours worked, including minimum
and overtime wages; (b) failing to provide meal periods or
compensation in lieu thereof; (c) failing to authorize or permit
rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof; (d) failing to
pay all wages due upon separation of employment; (e) willfully
failing to provide accurate and itemized wage statements; (f)
failing to reimburse all business expenses incurred by workers in
direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties; and (g)
failing to produce all employment records.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from approximately October
of 2017 to February of 2021.
Juniper Networks (US), Inc. is an American multinational
corporation headquartered in Sunnyvale, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
Annaliz Loera, Esq.
Nicolas W. Tomas, Esq.
LEBE LAW, APLC
777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90021
Telephone: (213) 444-1973
E-mail: jon@lebelaw.com
annaliz@lebelaw.com
nicolas@lebelaw.com
KELLY TOYS: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kelly Toys Holdings,
LLC. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Kelly
Toys Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01914 (E.D.N.Y., April 5,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kellytoy has grown to become one of the world's most influential,
leading manufacturers and distributors of high-quality plush
toys.[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
KETO CHOW: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keto Chow LLC. The
case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Keto Chow LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02819
(S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Keto Chow -- https://www.ketochow.xyz/ -- is complete nutrition for
Nutritional Ketosis. It's a drink mix that quickly and easily makes
a complete keto meal.[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
KIRKLAND'S STORES: Miles Loses Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARIANA MILES, individually
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the
California Private Attorneys General Act, v. KIRKLAND'S STORES,
INC., Case No. 5:18-cv-01559-JWH-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
John W. Holcomb entered an order:
1. overruling Miles evidentiary Objection;
2. denying Miles's instant motion for class certification;
3. directing the parties to confer forthwith and to file no
later than April 1, 2022, a Joint Status Report that
provides the Court with their jointly proposed case
schedule or, if the parties cannot agree, their respective
competing proposed case schedules and the reasons for
their disagreement.
4. continuing the video Case Management Conference to
April 15, 2022, at 11:00 a.m.
The Court said, "Because the remaining theory of liability—the
rest-break claim – under the Wage Statement Subclass fails, so
too does the Wage Statement Subclass. And with no Subclass
satisfying predominance, the proposed Class fails as well.
Accordingly, the Court finds that neither the proposed Class nor
any proposed Subclass satisfies the predominance requirement."
In May 2018, Miles filed her Complaint in Riverside County Superior
Court, thereby commencing this putative class action against
Defendants Kirkland’s Stores, Inc. and Doe Defendants.
In her Complaint, Miles asserts the following causes of action:
violation of California Labor for unpaid overtime, unpaid meal
period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, and unpaid minimum
wages.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rb8Tdu at no extra charge.[CC]
KOI KOKORO: Faces Villelas Suit Over Line Cooks' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROQUE ALFONSO SORTO VILLELAS, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOI KOKORO INC. (DBA/ KOIKOKORO)
and YOUNGDOM D. IM, Defendants, Case No. 0:22-cv-01942 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 5, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff for
federal and state claims relating to unpaid overtime wages, unpaid
spread-of-hours wages and failure to maintain records pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and related
provisions from Title 12 of the New York Codes, Rules and
Regulations.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants who was employed
as a line cook at Koi Kokoro Restaurant located in New York.
Koi Kokoro Inc. is a New York-based restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
KULI KULI INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kuli Kuli, Inc. The
case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Kuli Kuli, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02823-VSB (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kuli Kuli Inc. -- https://www.kulikulifoods.com/ -- is a food
business based in Oakland, California and the first company to
introduce Moringa oleifera to the US market in the form of
nutrition bars, powders, smoothie mixes, and energy shots. Moringa
is a nutritious plant food.[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
L3HARRIS TECH: Parties Directed to Confer on Class Cert Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stengl, et al., v.
L3Harris Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00572 (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an endorsed order
that:
-- The parties are directed to confer regarding deadlines
pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise
the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management
report.
-- The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure
of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant;
(2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class
certification; (4) response to motion for class
certification; and (5) reply to motion for class
certification.
L3Harris is an American technology company, defense contractor, and
information technology services provider that produces C6ISR
systems and products, wireless equipment, and tactical radios.
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act involving breach of fiduciary duties.[CC]
LANGUAGE LINE: Rouse Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Derek Rouse, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Language Line Services, Inc., Case No.
2216-CV01577, was removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on
March 25, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-00204-DGK to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.
Language Line Services -- https://www.languageline.com/s/ -- offers
document translation, video interpretation, sign language, and
face-to-face interpretation services in different languages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin C. Koc, Esq.
THE MEYERS LAW FIRM
503 One Main Plaza
4435 Main Street
Kansas City, MO 64111
Phone: (816) 444-8500
Email: kkoc@meyerslaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kyle B. Russell, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS PC - OPKS
7101 College Blvd., Suite 1200
Overland Park, KS 66210
Phone: (913) 982-5755
Fax: (913) 981-1019
Email: kyle.russell@jacksonlewis.com
MATCH GROUP: Bid to Extend Time to File Response OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crutchfield v. Match Group
Inc. et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-02356 (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge
Karen Gren Scholer entered an order on motion to extend time to
file response/reply:
-- The Court grants the Defendants' unopposed motion for
amended briefing schedule on Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.
-- The Defendants shall file their response by April 25,
2022.
-- Any reply, if necessary, shall be filed by June 1, 2022.
The nature of suit states Contract -- Stockholders Suits.
Match Group is an American internet and technology company
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. It owns and operates the largest
global portfolio of popular online dating services including
Tinder, Match.com, Meetic, OkCupid, Hinge, PlentyOfFish, Ship, and
OurTime totalling over 45 global dating companies.[CC]
MDL 2744: Bid to Exclude Strombom Opinion Granted in Gearshift Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FCA US LLC MONOSTABLE ELECTRONIC GEARSHIFT
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2744, Case No. 16-md-02744 (E.D. Mich.), Judge
David M. Lawson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and Order:
a. granting the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the testimony at
trial of Dr. Bruce Strombom; and
b. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion
to exclude the testimony at trial of Robert Kuhn.
I. Background
The Plaintiffs have moved to exclude the testimony at the issues
class trial of the Defendant's damages expert, Bruce Strombom and
its engineering expert, Robert Kuhn.
The Plaintiffs allege in their second amended consolidated master
complaint (SACMC) that the defendant sold certain vehicle models
that were defective because they were equipped with a monostable
shifter. That shifter design is defective, they contend, because
"it inhibits reliable gear selection and provides insufficient
tactile or audible feedback to allow drivers to readily and
confidently shift to their intended gear."
The Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of
individuals because they could not establish the predominance of
common issues over individual issues in their proposed classes and
subclasses as required by Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The
SACMC presently embraces claims under the law of 21 states on a
variety of legal theories including product liability, breaches of
express and implied warranties, consumer fraud, misrepresentation,
and unjust enrichment. However, the Court certified a common issues
class and scheduled the case for trial on those issues. The trial
was adjourned indefinitely because of the limitations imposed by
the novel coronavirus pandemic. Because the trial will be
rescheduled in the coming months, however, the pretrial motions now
will be addressed.
The Court previously excluded certain opinions offered by Dr.
Strombom at the class certification stage of the case. Dr. Strombom
has filed a supplemental report, which is the target of the
Plaintiffs' present motion. The Defendant intends to offer the
testimony of Robert Kuhn as a human factors engineering expert,
which the Plaintiffs also challenge.
II. Discussion
The three issues certified for the common issues trial are:
a. Whether the monostable gear shift has a design defect that
renders the class vehicles unsuitable for the ordinary use of
providing safe transportation.
b. Whether the defendant knew about the defect and concealed
its knowledge from buyers of the class vehicles.
c. Whether information about the defect that was concealed
would be material to a reasonable buyer.
A. Dr. Strombom
Dr. Strombom asserts, based on his review of the academic
literature, that "research finds that the U.S. resale automobile
market quickly and efficiently incorporates information on vehicle
quality as evidenced by a diminution of value for defective
vehicles," and, "academic economists have found that the revelation
of product defects can have measurable impacts on the prices of
used vehicles." Strombom stated that he identified comparable
vehicles to the class models for a study of resale prices, and then
"obtained data on used vehicle prices from NADA," which is a
national dealer association and data clearinghouse that "calculates
the price of used vehicles based on resale values of vehicles
traded in major auction houses in the United States," based on
"data derived from more than 1.5 million vehicle transactions each
month." Strombom then analyzed the data using various conventional
statistical techniques of visualization and quantization and
concluded that his "results indicate that Class Vehicles did not
experience an acceleration in depreciation relative to comparable
vehicles as of Q2 2016."
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to reaffirm its prior ruling excluding
Dr. Strombom's testimony on the basis that he is admittedly
unqualified to opine on the design of a conjoint analysis and his
proposed method of using used car pricing data to assess the
Pplaintiffs' damages is unreliable.
The Defendant contends that Dr. Strombom's testimony is not
precluded from the issue trial by the Court's previous ruling
because he would testify on different subjects for different ends,
and his testimony will be confined to "his conclusion that class
vehicles did not depreciate more rapidly than peer vehicles, even
after the alleged defect became widely known in the market," along
with his opinion that "this analysis demonstrates that consumers do
not value Class Vehicles less because of the alleged defect."
In their reply brief, the Plaintiffs raise a new ground for
exclusion of the testimony for the re-framed purposes stated by the
defendant in its response, arguing that Strombom's analysis of
depreciation is irrelevant and unreliable as a predictor of
consumer car buying preferences, because the data on which his
estimates were based was drawn entirely from wholesale auctions of
vehicles through auto brokers, and he conceded that in those venues
the cars were bought almost exclusively by commercial dealers
intending to resell them, not by individuals evaluating their
suitability for safe and reliable personal transportation.
Judge Lawson opines that several factors therefore undermine the
reliability of the opinion. First, Dr. Strombom conceded at his
deposition that all or nearly all of the transactions in his data
set involved wholesale buys by commercial auto dealers. Second, he
admitted that those dealers would be buying cars for eventual
resale to consumers, not for personal use. Third, he conceded that
he could not say that any reduction in willingness to pay by retail
consumer buyers could be extrapolated by via any reliable method
from an observed level of demand by commercial auto buyers at
wholesale auctions.
Finally, Dr. Strombom makes no attempt to account for self-evident
and significant differences in the purchase settings, such as the
fact that in an auction, dealers must bid competitively against
other dealers to obtain automobiles, whereas in a consumer retail
sale the pricing negotiation typically occurs one-on-one between a
salesperson and the prospective owner, without competition from any
onlooking fellow consumers bidding for the same vehicle.
For these reasons, Judge Lawson will grant the Plaintiffs' motion
to exclude Dr. Bruce Strombom's testimony at the common issues
trial.
B. Robert Kuhn
The Defendant intends to call Robert Kuhn, a professional engineer,
to testify about the field of human factors engineering. Kuhn is a
managing engineer at JP Research, Inc., in Commerce Township,
Michigan. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering from
Carnegie Mellon University and a Master of Science degree in
engineering from the University of Michigan. His professional
resume spans 35 years of automotive industry experience as an
engineer and consultant. His background is in automotive systems
engineering, and he specializes in the analysis of engineering
design issues, instrumented testing and test data, analysis of
warranty data, and investigation and analysis of "failure events"
in automobiles. He has extensive experience in powertrain and
chassis design, among other areas. Within the past four years, he
has testified in more than 25 matters pending in various state and
federal courts on a range of safety and technical issues.
In his report, Kuhn stated the 10 opinions, including but not
limited to, the following: (1) the 8-speed electronic transmission
used in the class vehicles "required the use of shift by wire (SBW)
technology" to control gear selection, (2) when the subject
vehicles were redesigned to use the 8-speed transmission, "the only
commercially available SBW gear shifters were of either monostable
lever or polystable rotary design," and "a lever-style polystable
shifter design did not exist and was not commercially available,"
(3) "the polystable rotary shifter was not available for use in the
WK (Grand Cherokee) platform due to IP intellectual property and
commercial issues with Jaguar," (4) "evaluation and testing of the
ZF shifter designs during development and integration into the
subject vehicle platforms did not identify or demonstrate any
safety issues or concerns that would or should have precluded their
use," and (5) the gear shift designs used in the class vehicles
"were consistent with those used by other manufacturers in their
SBW-equipped vehicles and met all of the requirements of the
applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
regulations."
The Plaintiffs argue that Kuhn's testimony must be excluded because
of seven reasons, including the following: (1) he concedes that he
has no expertise in "human machine interface" design, rendering him
unqualified to opine on the safety implications of the defendant's
gear shift interface, (2) he relied merely on portions of the
record and anecdotes not derived from any methodological study of
alternative designs to support his conclusions that the mis-shift
complaints are not unique to the defendant's design and the "fix"
of deploying an auto-park feature was effective and appropriate,
and (3) his assertion that the installations of the gear shift in
different models are "non-interchangeable" and thus not comparable
on a class-wide basis is supported only by deposition testimony
from one witness that at least two part numbers for the gear shift
were assigned by the defendant, and two photographs showing the
shifter installed in different cars.
The Defendant refutes each of these arguments. It contends that
Kuhn based each of his opinions on appropriate documentation,
first-hand observations, and his straightforward computations. It
contends that his opinions are not contradicted by the record, but
instead that there are fact issues in play that the jury must
decide, which will have some bearing on Kuhn's opinions.
Judge Lawson opines that the Plaintiffs have the better arguments.
With certain limited exceptions, she says, Kuhn's opinions will not
be admitted at the common issues trial because his report and
testimony demonstrate that most of his opinions are unsupported by
any reliable method or adequate factual basis.
Among other things, Judge Lawson holds that (i) Kuhn's opinion that
the Jaguar rotary shifter design was "not commercially available"
accordingly will be excluded because it merely reiterates the
defendant's self-serving view of the record, and it would not be
helpful to the jury; (ii) Kuhn's opinion that the Defendant had no
reason to believe that its design had problems before the class
vehicles went to market appears to be nothing more than his
reiteration of the Defendant's litigating position, based on a
slanted reading of the record that overlooks significant and
readily available information; and (iii) because Kuhn's opinions on
the commonality of the design are not supported by any adequate
factual basis and are not the result of any apparently reliable
examination, they must be excluded.
III. Order
Judge Lawson concludes that the Defendant has not satisfied all the
requirements of Evidence Rule 702 for admission of the expert
testimony of Dr. Bruce Strombom. Several of the proposed opinions
of engineer Robert Kuhn likewise do not satisfy those
requirements.
Accordingly, Judge Lawson granted the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude
the testimony at trial of Dr. Bruce Strombom. She granted in part
and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the testimony
at trial of Robert Kuhn.
Robert Kuhn may give opinion testimony on the following items:
a. that no polystable lever-style design was extant on the
market before the 2012 model year;
b. that the gear shift designs used in the class vehicles met
all of the requirements of the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard regulations;
c. that the addition of an auto park feature via the S27
recall was intended to further reduce the potential for an
inadvertent vehicle movement due to operator input errors by a
small minority of vehicle drivers;
d. that the number of complaints received by the defendant
and the NTSB represented less than 1% of the number of class
vehicles produced and sold in the relevant jurisdictions;
e. that no vehicle transmission shift selection system is
completely immune from the potential for operator-related errors;
f. that the 8-speed electronic transmission used in the class
vehicles required the use of shift by wire technology to control
gear selection;
g. that every passenger vehicle and light truck sold in the
U.S. is required to have a parking brake system installed, which is
intended to prevent the vehicle from inadvertently moving from a
parked position, and use of the parking brake is required,
recommended, or referenced in the driver training manuals of 47
states; and
h. that all of the vehicles owned by the named Plaintiffs
except one had FCA's S27 recall fix installed.
The motion is granted in all other respects.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mrxkrzt8 from Leagle.com.
MIAMI BAY BEVERAGE: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Miami Bay Beverage
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Miami Bay Beverage
Company, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02825 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Miami Bay Beverage, LLC doing business as Trimino --
https://drinktrimino.com/ -- manufactures and supplies beverages.
The Company offers protein infused flavored water.[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
MINT JULEP BOUTIQUE: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Mint Julep
Boutique, LLC. The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. The Mint Julep
Boutique, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02846 (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Mint Julep Boutique -- https://shopthemint.com/ -- is a
one-stop online boutique for shopping women's clothing, trendy
tops, dresses, shoes, and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
MORINAGA NUTRITIONAL: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Morinaga Nutritional
Foods, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Morinaga Nutritional
Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02824 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Morinaga Nutritional Foods, Inc. -- https://morinaga-usa.com/ -- is
a manufacturer of soy and dairy products based in Torrance,
California.[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
MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Extended to Oct. 28
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARK, et al., v.
MULTNOMAH COUNTY, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00501 (D. Or.), the Hon.
Judge Ann L. Aiken entered an order on motion for extension of
discovery & PTO deadlines as follows:
-- Motion for class certification is due by Oct 28, 2022.
-- Amended pleadings are due 45 days following the Court's
order on plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
-- Fact discovery material to individual claims is to be
completed 120 days following the Court's order on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
-- Dispositive motions are due 45 days following the close of
fact discovery material to individual claims. ADR report is
due 60 days following the Court's ruling on any dispositive
motions.
The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Prison Condition.
Multnomah County is one of the 36 counties in the U.S. state of
Oregon.[CC]
NAVIENT CORP: Tentative Agreements to Settle Suits Reached
----------------------------------------------------------
SLM Student Loan Trust 2014-2 disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2022, that in the third
quarter of 2021, its sponsor, Navient, reached tentative agreements
to settle cases captioned "Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., et
al. v. Navient Corporation, et al.," two class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned
"Eli Pope v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak
Chivavibul and Christian Lown" and "Melvin Gross v. Navient
Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian M.
Lown," both of which allege violations of the federal securities
laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.
The cases were consolidated by the Court in February 2018 under the
caption "In Re Navient Corporation Securities Litigation" and the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in April 2018.
The settlements, in which Navient and the other defendants
expressly deny any admission or concession of wrongdoing or fault,
are subject to court approval after notice and hearing. The
settlement in Lord Abbett has received final approval. A hearing on
final approval of the settlement in the "In Re Navient Corporation
Securities Litigation" is pending.
Navient Funding, LLC and Navient Solutions, LLC are sponsors of the
SLM Student Loan Trust 2014-2.
NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York Community
Bancorp, Inc. The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. New York
Community Bancorp, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02810 (S.D.N.Y., April 5,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
New York Community Bancorp, Inc. -- https://www.mynycb.com/ -- is a
bank headquartered in Westbury, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
NEW YORK TIMES: Nashel Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Information
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John Nashel and Tim Robinson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Case No.
2:22-cv-10633-SJM-DRG (E.D. Mich., March 24, 2022), is brought
against the Defendant for its intentional and unlawful disclosure
of its customers' Private Reading Information in violation of
Michigan's Video Rental Privacy Act (VRPA).
To supplement its revenues, NYT rents, exchanges, or otherwise
discloses its customers' information--including their full names,
titles of publications subscribed to, and home addresses
(collectively "Private Reading Information"), as well as myriad
other categories of individualized data and demographic information
such as gender and age--to data aggregators, data appenders, data
cooperatives, and other third parties without the written consent
of its customers.
The Defendant rented, exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed
detailed information about the Plaintiffs' The New York Times
newspaper subscriptions to data aggregators, data appenders, data
cooperatives, and list brokers, among others, which in turn
disclosed Plaintiffs' information to aggressive advertisers,
political organizations, and non-profit companies. As a result, the
Plaintiffs have received a barrage of unwanted junk mail. By
renting, exchanging, and/or otherwise disclosing the Plaintiffs'
Private Reading Information during the relevant pre-July 30, 2016
time period, the Defendant violated the VRPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were subscribers to The New York Times, including
during the relevant pre-July 30, 2016 time period.
The New York Times Company is a New York corporation with its
headquarters and principal place of business in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Phone: 248.841.2200
Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
- and –
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: 646.837.7150
Fax: 212.989.9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
jmarchese@bursor.com
- and –
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
Arun G. Ravindran, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 305.357.2107
Fax: 305.200.8801
Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com
aravindran@hedinhall.com
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: De Leon Seeks to Certify Class, Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NELCY MABEL GARCIA DE
LEON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:21-cv-05005-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
1. certifying class defined as:
-- The Fees Class:
"All persons whom paid fees for or on behalf of students
enrolled at New York University who were charged fees
for services, facilities, resources, events and/or
activities for the Spring 2020 Semester that were not
provided in whole or in part," or, alternatively:
-- The Graduate Student Fees Subclass:
"All people who paid fees for or on behalf of students
enrolled in graduate level classes at New York
University who were charged fees for services,
facilities, resources, events and/or activities for the
Spring 2020 Semester that were not provided in whole or
in part;"
2. appointing her as Class Representative; and
3. appointing Anastopoulo Law Firm, LLC as Class Counsel.
New York University is a private research university in New York
City. Chartered in 1831 by the New York State Legislature, NYU was
founded by a group of New Yorkers led by then-Secretary of the
Treasury Albert Gallatin.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jCxNPf
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
Roy T. Willey, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com
roy@akimlawfirm.com
blake@akimlawfirm.com
pauld@akimlawfirm.com
- and -
Edward Toptani, Esq.
TOPTANI LAW OFFICES
375 Pearl St., Ste. 1410
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 699-8930
Facsimile: (212) 699-8939
E-mail: edward@toptanilaw.com
NEW YORK, NY: Leslie, Burgos Seek to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned SHAKIRA LESLIE and SHAMILL
BURGOS; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. CITY OF NEW YORK; KEECHANT SEWELL, Police Commissioner for the
City of New York, in her official capacity; KENNETH COREY, Chief of
for the New York City Police , in his official capacity; JAMES
ESSIG, Chief of Detectives for the New York City Police Department,
in his official capacity; EMANUEL KATRANAKIS, Deputy Chief in the
Forensic Investigations Division of the New York City Police
Department, in his official capacity; and DR. JASON GRAHAM, Acting
Chief Medical Examiner for the City of New York, in his official
capacity, Case No. 1:22-cv-02305-NRB (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the following class:
"all people who have had or will have their DNA
surreptitiously taken and analyzed by the defendants
without consent and without a warrant or court order and
maintained in the City's Suspect Index;" and
2. appointing their counsel to represent the certified class
pursuant to Rule 23(g).
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37y5Chy
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Philip Desgranges, Esq.
J. David Pollock, Esq.
Brittany Thomas, Esq.
Anna Blondell, Esq.
Allison Durkin, Esq.
Lisa Freeman, Esq.
Corey Stoughton, Esq.
THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY
199 Water Street
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 577-3398
E-mail: pdesgranges@legal-aid.org
jpollock@legal-aid.org
bthomas@legal-aid.org
ablondell@legal-aid.org
adurkin_fellow@legal-aid.org
lafreeman@legal-aid.org
cstoughton@legal-aid.org
NORTH AMERICAN CREDIT: Temples Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR TEMPLES, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH AMERICAN CREDIT SERVICES INC,
Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-00810 (M.D. Fla., April 5, 2022) arises
from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FDCPA with
respect to the character and/or amount of the Plaintiff's debt by
using the represented itemization date in the collection letter
since the said itemization date is not one of the five dates
permitted by the law. The Defendant's conduct causes the Plaintiff
to falsely believe that the itemization date is the last statement
date, the charge off date, the last payment date, the transaction
date, or the judgment date, the complaint adds.
Based in Chattanooga, Tennessee, North American Credit Services
Inc. operates as a credit collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
NYKO TECHNOLOGIES: Ambriz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Ambriz, in his individual capacity and on behalf of
aggrieved employees under the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 v. NYKO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
California corporation; OKYN HOLDINGS, INC., a California
corporation; HERSCHEL NAGHI, an Individual; and DOES 1-10, Case No.
22STCV10378 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 25, 2022), is
brought against the Defendants for damages, including but not
limited to unpaid overtime wages and other compensatory damages,
interest, civil penalties under, statutory penalties under the
California Labor Code, costs and, where applicable, attorney's
fees, resulting from the Defendants' unlawful employment practices
in violation of California law.
In this position, the Plaintiff was paid a base salary plus a
monthly commission on paid invoices. The Plaintiff was never given
any commission agreement signed by the Defendants that identified
the terms and conditions of eligibility for earning commissions.
The Plaintiff s job duties were to make sales of the Defendants'
videogame accessories in the U.S. and throughout Latin America. Te
Plaintiff performed these duties primarily from Defendants'
business offices and, during the COVID-19 pandemic, from both the
Defendants' business offices and his home office.
The Plaintiffs' job duties, however, did not require the Plaintiff
to regularly spend more than fifty percent of his working hours
away from the Defendants' offices engaged in sales activities.
Rather, the Plaintiff largely performed his sales work in the
offices, using his laptop and phone. The Plaintiff only
occasionally visited customers in their offices and did so only for
those customers in the local area. In addition, the Plaintiff did
not perform the duties of an executive, administrative employee or
professional employee who can be classified as exempt from
California overtime requirements. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
regularly worked overtime without overtime compensation. He also
regularly was unable to take meal or rest periods that he should
have received, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff commenced employment with the Defendants on July 15,
2018 in the position of Latin American Sales Manager.
NYKO is a corporation organized under the laws of California with a
principal place of business in the city of Los Angeles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Drew L. Alexis, Esq.
ALEXIS LAW FIRM
100 W. Broadway, Suite 250
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: (562) 544-2495
Fax: (562) 546-4495
Email: dalexis@alexislawfirm.com
- and -
C. E. Kimberly Lind, Esq.
KO LEGAL, INC.
100 W. Broadway, Suite 250
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: (562) 332-6169
Fax: (714) 242-1590
Email: Kim@KO-Legal.com
OHIO LIVING: Preliminary Pretrial Order Entered in Kordie Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE KORDIE, v. OHIO
LIVING, et al., Kordie v. Ohio Living, et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-03791-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M.
Vascura entered a preliminary pretrial order as follows:
-- Motions or stipulations addressing February 3, 2023
the parties or pleadings, if any,
must be filed no later than:
-- The motion for class certification May 31, 2023
must be filed no later than:
-- All discovery shall be completed by: April 28, 2023
-- Case dispositive motions must be June 30, 2023
filed by:
A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DKM2e3 at no extra charge.[CC]
OLYMPIA DEVELOPMENT: Wilkinson Sues Over Illegal Parking Tickets
----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW WILKINSON and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
OLYMPIA DEVELOPMENT OF MICHIGAN, LLC doing business as OLYMPIA
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and PASSPORT LABS, INC, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-10714-LJM-JJCG (E.D. Mich., April 5, 2022) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of individuals who were
subject to the issuance of one or more parking ticket(s) by Olympia
Development Authority in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Mr. Wilkinson visited downtown Detroit for an event on March 26,
2022. He drove to a lot that he has previously parked in before on
West Adams between Cass and Clifford. An attendant waved him into
the lot and allegedly collected $20 as a parking fee. The "parking
ticket" was seemingly propounded by Defendant OLYMPIA DEVELOPMENT
OF MICHIGAN, LLC and/or Defendant PASSPORT LABS, INC operating
under the false name of "Olympia Development Authority" which does
not have the legal authority to issue any parking ticket(s) as if
it were a municipality, a government, or a law enforcement agency,
asserts the complaint.
The Defendants violated the law by using unfair or unconscionable
means to collect or attempt to collect debt(s) through the use of
fake parking tickets, the website, the telephone system, and the
use of the "Olympia Development Authority" name, adds the
complaint
Olympia Development of Michigan, LLC is domestic limited liability
company formed under the laws of the State of Michigan and is a
debt collector.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Ellison, Esq.
OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC
PO Box 107
Hemlock, MI 48626
Telephone: (989) 642-0055
E-mail: pellison@olcplc.com
- and -
Matthew E. Gronda, Esq.
4855 State Street, Suite 6A
Saginaw, MI 48603
Telephone: (989) 249-0350
E-mail: matt@matthewgronda.com
OPPORTUNITY FINANCIAL: Johnson Files RICO Suit in E.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Opportunity
Financial, LLC. The case is styled as Sherie Johnson, an individual
on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated v.
Opportunity Financial, LLC, John Does (1-10), Case No.
3:22-cv-00190-REP (E.D. Va., April 6, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for the Racketeering (RICO) Act.
Opportunity Financial (OppFi) -- https://www.oppfi.com/ -- is a
leading financial technology platform that powers banks to help the
everyday consumer gain access to credit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Madison Small, Esq.
J. MADISON PLC
1750 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 1500
McLean, VA 22021
Phone: (703) 910-5062
Email: jmsmall@jmadisonplc.com
PAN AMERICAN: Refusal to Dismiss Claim in Rodriguez Suit Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAMONA MATOS RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., Appellees v. PAN
AMERICAN HEALTH ORGANIZATION, Appellant. JOAQUIN MOLINA, ET AL.,
Appellees, Case No. 20-7114 (D.C. App.), the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's
order denying the dismissal of the claim that Pan American Health
Organization acted as a financial intermediary.
I. Introduction
A group of Cuban physicians sued the Pan American Health
Organization (PAHO) for its role in facilitating Brazil's Mais
Medicos (translated, "More Doctors") program, under which Brazil
hired foreign physicians to augment its medical services provided
to impoverished Brazilians. Cuba supplied physicians to the
program, allegedly without their consent and in violation of human
trafficking laws. The physicians sued PAHO for, inter alia, acting
as a financial intermediary between Brazil and Cuba.
PAHO moved to dismiss the suit, asserting immunity under both the
International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA), 22 U.S.C.
Section 288, and the World Health Organization (WHO) Constitution,
Constitution Adopted by the United States of America and Other
Governments Respecting a World Health Organization, June 21, 1948,
62 Stat. 2679, T.I.A.S. No. 1808. The district court denied
dismissal of the claim that PAHO acted as a financial intermediary
and PAHO appeals therefrom.
II. Background
In 2012, Brazilian and Cuban officials discussed Cuba's "exporting"
medical services to Brazil. According to the United States
Department of State, Cuba relies on "medical missions" as a
significant source of income; and recruits physicians under the
threat of "harsh social, economic, political, personal,
reputational, and legal repercussions." Id. Cuba proposed sending
six thousand internal medicine specialists to Brazil.
Brazilian officials did not want to enter into an
"intergovernmental agreement," which required approval of the
Brazilian Congress and thus could "generate controversy." To avoid
an intergovernmental agreement, Brazilian officials proposed using
PAHO as an intermediary. Accordingly, PAHO entered into an
agreement with Brazil and Cuba, the "Technical Cooperation
Agreement Between the Ministry of Public Health of the Republic of
Cuba and the Pan American Health Organization/World Health
Organization for Expanded Access by the Brazilian Population to
Primary Health Care."
PAHO's participation in the Mais Medicos program is somewhat
ambiguous, as the complaint alleges two alternative roles that PAHO
played. First, the complaint alleges that PAHO directly
participated in human trafficking. Alternatively, the complaint
alleges that PAHO acted as a financial intermediary between Brazil
and Cuba.
The complaint acknowledges that under the Agreement, PAHO is to
provide technical medical expertise necessary to facilitate the
Mais Medicos program. Under the Agreement, PAHO was to serve as a
"broker -- for a fee -- of medical services" and "triangulate
health care services between Cuba and Brazil for compensation."
According to the complaint, however, PAHO's outward role to
"facilitate" or "triangulate" medical services was merely a
"pretext for being a conduit of money."
Four Cuban Mais Medicos physicians escaped to the United States and
filed a class-action suit against PAHO in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint contains two
civil counts: First, PAHO participated in human trafficking and
violated the TVPA, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1589, 1590; and, second, PAHO
conspired to provide involuntary labor and thus violated the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 18
U.S.C. Section 1962.
PAHO successfully moved to transfer the case to the U.S. District
Court of the District of Columbia as the correct venue under the
IOIA. It moved to dismiss on immunity, abstention and improper
service grounds.
The district court determined that "Count I" -- alleging that PAHO
violated the TVPA -- itself included three separate claims. First,
PAHO obtained and provided human labor through intimidation,
violating 18 U.S.C. Section 1589(a) (prohibiting "providing or
obtaining the labor or services of a person" by force or threat).
Second, PAHO benefitted financially from human trafficking,
violating 18 U.S.C. Section 1589(b) (prohibiting "knowingly
benefitting, financially or by receiving anything of value, from
participation in a venture which has engaged in the providing or
obtaining of labor or services by" force or threat). Third, PAHO
"trafficked" Cuban physicians, violating 18 U.S.C. Section 1590
(prohibiting "transporting any person for labor or services in
violation of this chapter").
The district court upheld PAHO's IOIA immunity as to the first and
third TVPA claims as well as the RICO claim, and held those claims
in abeyance while it determined whether to allow jurisdictional
discovery. Accordingly, those claims are not yet before the Court
of Appeals.
On the second TVPA claim, the district court rejected PAHO's IOIA
immunity. It concluded that the commercial activity exception
applies because "it is a normal commercial function to act as a
financial intermediary transferring funds, for a fee, from one
entity to another." The district court also rejected PAHO's IOIA
immunity regarding the RICO claim to the extent that it rests on
the conduct underlying the 1589(b) claim. It also concluded that
the WHO Constitution did not render PAHO immune from the second
TVPA claim.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291 and the collateral-order
doctrine, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction of the second TVPA
claim, that is, that PAHO financially benefitted from its
participation in a venture that provided or obtained forced labor
in violation of Section 1589(b).
III. Analysis
PAHO asserts its immunity under both the IOIA and the WHO
Constitution. Our review is de novo. "Where, as in the case, the
defendant contests only the legal sufficiency of the jurisdictional
claims, the standard is similar to that of Rule 12(b)(6), under
which dismissal is warranted if no plausible inferences can be
drawn from the facts alleged that, if proven, would provide grounds
for relief." Accordingly, PAHO bears the burden of establishing
that no statutory exception to immunity applies. The WHO
Constitution is an international treaty and thus its interpretation
-- including whether it is self-executing -- is an issue of law
that the Court of Appeals also reviews de novo.
A. IOIA Immunity
The IOIA, through the FSIA provisions, grants PAHO immunity from
suit brought in American courts. Under the FSIA's commercial
activity exception, however, PAHO loses its immunity if "the action
is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States
by the international organization." The Supreme Court has said that
courts should look to "the gravamen" of the action when determining
whether an action is "based upon" a commercial activity in the
United States. "The gravamen" simply means "the crux" of the
action. Unsurprisingly, the parties describe neither the gravamen
nor its application under the commercial activity exception in the
same way. Their dispute includes whether to identify the gravamen
on a claim-by-claim basis and, further, whether the gravamen took
place in the United States.
First, the Court of Appeals opines that although PAHO emphasizes
that the commercial activity exception uses "action" (and the
expropriation exception does not), it thinks it unlikely that this
implicit word choice differentiates commercial activity exception
analysis from that of other FSIA exceptions.
The parties also contest PAHO's alleged delict -- whether PAHO
"moved money for a fee" (i.e., acting as a financial intermediary)
or, instead, arranged medical services for a fee (i.e., acting as
an international public health organization). As described, the
complaint alleges that PAHO "moved money for a fee" under the
"pretext" of arranging medical services. PAHO, of course, maintains
that it in fact organized a public health program. At this stage of
the litigation, however, the Court of Appeals accepts all
well-pleaded allegations as true. The complaint plainly asserts
that, with respect to the funds that constituted its financial
benefit in violation of 1589(b), PAHO had the role of financial
"intermediary," transferring money among Mais Medicos
participants.
Second, the Court of Appeals opines that the alleged financial
activity itself gives rise to a cause of action. PAHO received,
forwarded and retained the Mais Medicos money through its
Washington, D.C. bank account. Apart from the wrongful conduct PAHO
allegedly participated in abroad, the physicians also allege
wrongful conduct that occurred entirely within the U.S.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals believes that the physicians have
sufficiently alleged that PAHO's conduct of "moving money for a
fee" constituted "commercial activity carried on in the United
States." It emphasizes, however, that it holds only that the
physicians have made sufficient allegations to survive dismissal;
the district court retains the authority to reassess its
jurisdiction as the litigation progresses.
B. WHO Constitution Immunity
PAHO also claims immunity under the WHO Constitution. The WHO
Constitution provides that it "shall enjoy in the territory of each
Member such privileges and immunities as may be necessary for the
fulfillment of its objective and for the exercise of its
functions." "Such privileges and immunities will be defined in a
separate agreement to be prepared by the Organization in
consultation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and
concluded between the Members."
The Court of Appeals assumes arguendo that PAHO, the WHO's Regional
Office for the Americas, Agreement Between the World Health
Organization and the Pan American Sanitary Organization, May 24,
1949, also enjoys the immunity granted to the WHO under the WHO
Constitution. It nonetheless rejects PAHO's immunity claim because
the relevant provision of the WHO Constitution is not
self-executing.
As made plain by the language of Articles 67(a) and 68 of the WHO
Constitution, Article 67(a) is not self-executing. Moreover,
Article 68 stipulates that the political branches will enforce
Article 67(a). The Court of Appeals notes that the United States
has submitted an amicus brief affirming that, in its view, WHO
Constitution Article 67(a) is not self-executing. "Respect is
ordinarily due the reasonable views of the Executive Branch
concerning the meaning of an international treaty." The Executive
Branch's position reinforces the Court of Appeals' decision.
IV. Disposition
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson, writing
for the Court of Appeals, affirmed the district court's judgment
denying PAHO's motion to dismiss the 18 U.S.C. Section 1589(b)
claim and remanded for further proceedings consistent with her
Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/a8nw9zp8 from Leagle.com.
David W. Bowker -- DAVID.BOWKER@WILMERHALE.COM -- argued the cause
for the Appellant. With him on the briefs were Patrick J. Carome
and Daniel S. Volchok.
Jeffrey T. Green -- JGREEN@SIDLEY.COM -- and Marisa S. West --
MARISA.WEST@SIDLEY.COM -- were on the brief for amici curiae The
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, et al., in
support of the Appellant.
Samuel J. Dubbin -- sdubbin@dubbinkravetz.com -- argued the cause
for the Appellees. With him on the brief were Jonathan W. Cuneo,
Charles J. Cooper, Michael W. Kirk, Haley N. Proctor and Joseph O.
Masterman. Martina E. Vandenberg and Stuart A. Raphael were on the
brief for amicus curiae Human Trafficking Legal Center in support
of the Appellees. Elbert Lin entered an appearance.
Agnieszka M. Fryszman -- afryszman@cohenmilstein.com -- was on the
brief for amici curiae Senator Robert Menendez, et al., in support
of the Appellees.
Lewis Yelin, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause
for amicus curiae The United States in support of neither party.
With him on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, and Sharon Swingle, Attorney.
PDS BIOTECHNOLOGY: Rosener Files Notice of Voluntary Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PDS Biotechnology Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2022, that on February 22,
2022, plaintiff David R. Rosener, a purported stockholder of the
company, filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware with regards to a putative class
action and shareholder derivative complaint in the same court (Case
No. 2021-0644 JRS, July 23, 2021) against the company and all of
its directors and certain of its executive officers.
The plaintiff named all current directors of PDS as defendants as
well as PDS's Chief Scientific Officer and PDS's Chief Medical
Officer and also named PDS as a nominal defendant. The plaintiff
claimed PDS's bylaws required tabulation of broker non-votes on a
certain "Proposal 3" at the company's 2021 annual stockholder
meeting held on June 17, 2021 which sought shareholder approval of
the Second Amended and Restated PDS Biotechnology Corporation 2014
Equity Incentive Plan.
The complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duties,
declaratory judgment, waste of corporate assets and unjust
enrichment in connection with the plan and the granting of an
aggregate of 1,040,700 stock options to certain executive officers
pursuant to the same. The plaintiff sought unspecified monetary
damages, to have the plan declared void, and rescission of the
grant of stock options as ultra vires.
At the special meeting of stockholders held on January 19, 2022,
the requisite stockholders of the company voted to ratify the prior
approval of the plan which was adopted at the 2021 Annual Meeting
and the stock options issued under the plan.
PJ NATIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Washington Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN WASHINGTON, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. PJ NATIONAL HOLDINGS LLC,
PJ NATIONAL MANAGEMENT LLC, PJ NATIONAL BROOKLYN LLC d/b/a PAPA
JOHN'S, and JOHN DOE RESTAURANTS 1-40, d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01923 (E.D.N.Y., April 5, 2022) is
brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law to recover unpaid wages, including
unpaid overtime premium, due to time shaving, unreimbursed
expenses, unpaid spread of hours, unpaid call in-pay, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Mr. Washington was hired by Defendants to work as a delivery driver
for Papa John's Stanley Avenue restaurant from April 2020 to August
2021.
PJ National Holdings LLC owns and operates pizza establishments in
New York and New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
PORTLAND GENERAL: Settlement in PERSM Suit Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi v. Portland General Electric
Company, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01786-SI (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge
Michael H. Simon entered an order granting Lead Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement and
class counsel's unopposed motion for award of attorney's fees and
expenses:
-- The court awards class counsel $1,687,500 in attorney's
fees and $86,382.59 in costs, to be paid from the
settlement fund.
-- This case is dismissed, but the court retains jurisdiction
over the parties and all matters relating to the lawsuit
and settlement, including the administration,
interpretation, construction, effectuation, enforcement,
and consummation of the settlement and this opinion and
order.
Portland General is a Fortune 1000 public utility based in
Portland, Oregon. It distributes electricity to customers in parts
of Multnomah, Clackamas, Marion, Yamhill, Washington, and Polk
counties - 44% of the inhabitants of Oregon.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KvsXyR at no extra charge.[CC]
PROCOLLECT INC: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to June 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Diallo v. Procollect Inc.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-03199 (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David C. Godbey
entered an order granting motion to extend time.
The Plaintiffs deadline to file the motion to certify class is
extended to June 16, 2022, says Judge Godbey.
The suit alleges violation o the Fair Debt Collection Act.
Procollect is operating as a debt collection company.[CC]
QG PRINTING: Seeks Reconsideration of March 4 Order
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES SIMS, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. QG
PRINTING II LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company; 74 QC
PRINTING II LLC, business organization, form unknown; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-01632-DMG-KK (C.D. Cal.),
the Defendant QG Printing asks the Court to reconsider its Order
granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated March 4,
2022.
The Defendant's motion for reconsideration is made pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60, Local Rule 7-18, and the
Court's inherent authority to reconsider, rescind, or modify its
interlocutory orders.
The Court impermissibly certified a class of employees that
includes those that might have checked their schedules online when
the only objective evidence presented by Plaintiff in his motion
related solely to those who called the hotline and Plaintiff only
moved for a class of employees that had called the hotline, the
Defendant contend.
The Court erred in finding commonality as it did not consider the
material facts presented by Defendant showing that a substantial
portion of the class members never called-in and therefore there
cannot, as a matter of law, be a common injury across all class
members, the Defendant adds.
QG Printing provides printing services. The Company offers
inventory management, binding, monitoring, tracking, publishing,
and logistics.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 18, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j9lqtv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Gregory G. Iskander, Esq.
Benjamin Sanchez, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Telephone: (925) 932-2468
Facsimile: (925) 946-9809
E-mail: giskander@littler.com
bsanchez@littler.com
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Klugman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Receivables
Performance Management, LLC. The case is styled as Aryeh Klugman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Receivables Performance Management, LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-02835
(S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Receivables Performance Management (RPM) --
http://www.receivablesperformance.com/-- is a national leader in
accounts receivable management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christofer Merritt, Esq.
STEIN SAKS LLC
1 University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (540) 907-8248
Email: cmerritt@SteinSaksLegal.com
RECON OILFIELD: Klees Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
KALEN KLEES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. RECON OILFIELD SERVICES, INC., and TRIPLE J OILFIELD
SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01895-JLG-CMV (S.D.
Ohio, April 6, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to
pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime wages,
seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act,
and the Ohio's recordkeeping laws.
The Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt "employee" of
Defendants as defined in the FLSA and the Ohio Acts primarily in
the position of Power Washer and Roustabout from approximately July
2018 until April 2021.
Recon Oilfield Services, Inc. provides balance of payments services
and hydrostatic testing, pressure and steam washing, and oilfield
roustabouts for oilfield companies in the State of Ohio and
elsewhere in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
SILVERBACK THERAPEUTICS: Faces Dresner Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Silverback Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2022, that on November 5,
2021, a securities class action complaint was filed against the
company and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S.
District for the Western District of Washington, captioned "Dresner
v. Silverback Therapeutics, Inc., et al.," Case No. 2:21-cv-01499.
The complaint alleges that between December 3, 2020 and September
10, 2021, the company and certain of its officers and directors
violated (1) Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and (2)
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by
making allegedly false and misleading statements in various SEC
filings and press releases regarding the clinical and commercial
prospects of its product candidate, "SBT6050," which is now
discontinued. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and interest,
as well as attorneys' fees and other costs.
Silverback Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company focused on
leveraging proprietary ImmunoTAC technology platform to develop
systemically delivered, tissue targeted therapeutics for the
treatment of chronic viral infections, cancer, and other serious
diseases.
SITEL GROUP: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
SHRINE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SITEL GROUP and SYKES ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED, Case
No. 1:22-cv-21023 (S.D. Fla., April 5, 2022) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to
Plaintiff and the non-overtime-exempt workers like her, after the
onset of the 2021 Kronos hack, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.
According to the complaint, Sitel's timekeeping and payroll systems
were affected by the hack of Kronos in 2021, resulting to problems
in timekeeping and payroll throughout Sitel's organization. Sitel
failed to implement a system for recording hours and paying wages
to non-exempt employees until issues related to the hack were
resolved. Instead, Sitel used prior pay periods or reduced payroll
estimates to avoid paying wages and proper overtime to these
non-exempt hourly and salaried employees, asserts the complaint.
Ms. Williams has worked for Sitel since September 2021.
Sitel Group is a privately owned contact center company
headquartered in Miami, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road 4th Floor
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
SMG HOLDINGS: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in McCarty Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHAWN McCARTY, et al., Plaintiffs v. SMG HOLDINGS, I,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-06232-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge
James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California denied the named Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
I. Background
In the action alleging violations of California state employment
laws, named Plaintiffs Shawn McCarty, Fabian Guerrero, and David
Babcock move for class certification.
Defendants SMG, SMG Holdings I, LLC, and SMG Holdings II, LLC
"operate large venues throughout the State of California, including
in the cities of Stockton, California and San Francisco,
California, including convention centers, arenas and theaters."
Plaintiff McCarty has worked for defendants since October 2008,
including as a retail/sales employee and assistant manager at the
SMG Stockton Arena and SMG's Bob Hope Theater in Stockton.
Plaintiff Babcock worked for defendants from December 2012 to 2016,
and was a server and bartender at the SMG Stockton Arena and the
Bob Hope Theater in Stockton. Plaintiff Guerrero worked for the
Defendants from August 2011 to April 2015; he was a cook at the SMG
Moscone Center in San Francisco.
The Plaintiffs request certification of two classes under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3):
a. San Francisco Class: All non-exempt employees of Defendant
SMG in San Francisco, California during the period of Oct. 27, 2013
through the date of the order granting class certification (Class
Period).
b. Stockton Class: All non-exempt employees of Defendant SMG
in Stockton, California during the Class Period.
The Plaintiffs also seek certification of the following 12
subclasses under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3):
a. San Francisco Rounding Subclass: All non-exempt employees
of Defendant SMG in San Francisco who were not paid for all time
they were clocked in during the Class Period.
b. San Francisco Meal Period Subclass: All non-exempt
employees of Defendant SMG in San Francisco who worked one or more
shifts over five hours during the Class Period.
c. San Francisco Rest Break Subclass: All non-exempt employees
of Defendant SMG in San Francisco who worked one or more shifts
over 3.5 hours during the Class Period.
d. San Francisco Reimbursement Subclass: All non-exempt
employees of Defendant SMG in San Francisco who were not reimbursed
by defendants for the cost of the use of their personal cell phones
for SMG's business purposes incurred during the Class Period.
e. San Francisco Wage Statement Subclass: All non-exempt
employees of Defendant SMG in San Francisco who received a wage
statement during the Class Period.
f. San Francisco Waiting Time Subclass: All non-exempt
employees of Defendant SMG in San Francisco who separated from
their employment during the Class Period.
g. Stockton Rounding Subclass: All non-exempt employees of
Defendant SMG in Stockton who were not paid for all time they were
clocked in during the Class Period.
h. Stockton Meal Period Subclass: All non-exempt employees of
Defendant SMG in Stockton who worked one or more shifts over five
hours during the Class Period.
i. Stockton Rest Break Subclass: All non-exempt employees of
Defendant SMG in Stockton who worked one or more shifts over 3.5
hours during the Class Period.
j. Stockton Reimbursement Subclass: All non-exempt employees
of Defendant SMG in Stockton who were not reimbursed by defendants
for the cost of the use of their personal cell phones for SMG's
business purposes incurred during the Class Period.
k. Stockton Wage Statement Subclass: All non-exempt employees
of Defendant SMG in Stockton who received a wage statement during
the Class Period.
l. Stockton Waiting Time Subclass: All non-exempt employees of
Defendant SMG in Stockton who separated from their employment
during the Class Period.
Certification of the classes and subclasses is sought for eight of
the claims alleged in the TAC: (1) failure to provide required meal
periods; (2) failure to provide required rest breaks; (3) failure
to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to pay minimum wages; (5)
failure to pay all wages due to quitting employees; (6) failure to
furnish accurate itemized wage statements; (7) failure to indemnify
employees for necessary business expenditures incurred in discharge
of duties; and (8) violation of the Unfair Competition Law.
II. Discussion
The Plaintiffs must show that their proposed classes satisfy all
four requirements of Rule 23(a), and at least one of the
subsections of Rule 23(b). As the parties seeking certification,
they bear the burden of showing that the requirements of Rule 23
are met for each of their proposed classes.
Rule 23(a) calls for the moving party to "be prepared to prove that
there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions
of law or fact, typicality of claims or defenses, and adequacy of
representation." The party seeking certification must also "satisfy
through evidentiary proof at least one of the provisions of Rule
23(b)." In the case, the Plaintiffs focus on Rule 23(b)(3), which
permits certification when "questions of law or fact common to
class members predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members," and a class action is "superior to other
available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy."
Judge Donato finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to carry their
burden of establishing numerosity for each of their 12 proposed
subclasses. This alone means that certification of the subclasses
must be denied. The Plaintiffs have also failed to satisfy
commonality and predominance, on multiple scores.
A. Rest Break Claims
For San Francisco, the Plaintiffs say that SMG's "verbal rest break
policy fails to authorize and permit nonexempt employees to take
full, duty-free rest breaks," and the "CBA's rest break provision
also fails to authorize and permit duty-free, uninterrupted rest
breaks." Similarly, for Stockton, the Plaintiffs point to "SMG's
one-page policy," and say that the "Stockton policy fails to
authorize and permit nonexempt employees to take duty-free rest
breaks because it provides that employees may be required to remain
on the premises for their rest breaks."
This is entirely insufficient, Judge Donato holds. Plaintiffs
seeking class certification must "affirmatively demonstrate that
there are in fact common questions of law or fact." The mere
existence of a facially defective written policy -- without any
evidence that it was implemented in an unlawful manner -- does not
constitute 'significant proof,' that a class of employees were
subject to an unlawful practice. That is the case here, and the
Plaintiffs have consequently failed to establish commonality.
Predominance is lacking for the same reasons. The Plaintiffs have
pointed only to SMG's facial policies, and have offered
insufficient evidence of how those policies were actually
implemented "on the ground." Certification for the rest break
claims is denied.
B. Rounding Claims
The San Francisco and Stockton rounding claims suffer from the same
absence of commonality and predominance. The Plaintiffs say that
SMG had a "policy and practice of rounding nonexempt employees'
time worked for the entire class period to the nearest quarter hour
throughout the class period" in both locations. They also say that
"where an employee is under the control of his or her employer or
engaging in work-related activities after he or she clocks in for
work, a 'grace period' results in failure to compensate the
employee for all hours worked."
Judge Donato finds that the Plaintiffs have offered no evidence
suggesting that there was a grace period policy, nor have they
otherwise shown that whether the employees were working or under
the employer's control during any grace period is the kind of
question that can be answered on a classwide basis.
C. Reimbursement Claims
The Plaintiffs' certification argument for their reimbursement
claims is paper thin. Devoting less than half a page to the issue
and citing no evidence at all, the Plaintiffs merely assert that
"it was necessary for employees in both San Francisco and Stockton
locations to use their personal cell phones to communicate with
management regarding their schedules and work assignments," and
"yet the Defendants failed to provide nonexempt employees with cell
phone, failed to reimburse employees for the cost of the use of
their personal cell phones for SMG's business purposes, and failed
to maintain a cell phone reimbursement policy."
This falls well short of meeting the burden to "satisfy through
evidentiary proof" the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b)(3),
Judge Donato rules. Even if he were to consider the named
Plaintiffs' declarations, which the Plaintiffs failed to highlight
in their certification analysis, Judge Donato says there is not
much there. On the whole, this anecdotal and equivocal evidence
does not constitute "significant proof that a class of employees
were subject to an unlawful practice."
D. Meal Break Claims
For the meal break claims, the Plaintiffs have submitted evidence
of time records showing noncompliant meal periods. It is true that
this evidence does "raise a rebuttable presumption of meal period
violations." Even so, Judge Donato cannot find predominance to
support certification.
E. Derivative Claims
The Plaintiffs say that their "claims for failure to furnish
accurate itemized wage statements and unfair and unlawful business
practices are derivative of their other claims." They ask for the
derivative claims to be certified to the extent the underlying
claims are certified.
Judge Donato holds that certification for the derivative claims is
not warranted for the same reasons he has already stated. Because
the factors he has discussed are sufficient to support the denial
of the pending class certification request in its entirety, Judge
Donato declines to discuss the remaining Rule 23 factors.
III. Conclusion
Judge Donato denied the class certification. The case is re-opened.
A jury trial on the Plaintiffs' individual claims is set for Nov.
28, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., with a pretrial conference to be held on
Oct. 27, 2022, at 1:30 p.m.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2s4jb5v4 from Leagle.com.
SPIRALEDGE INC: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spiraledge, Inc. The
case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Spiraledge, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02849
(S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Spiraledge -- https://www.spiraledge.com/ -- is a leading internet
retailer and healthy living company headquartered in Campbell, CA
with offices in Cincinnati, Ohio and Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Class of First-Time Fliers in Cox Suit Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS COX, JULIE FEINER, SUSAN HOTT, SUSY
KOSHKAKARYAN, YULIUS MUSTAFA, GRETA SCHOENEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs
v. SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
17-CV-5172(EK)(VMS)(E.D.N.Y.), Judge Eric Komitee of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a
Memorandum & Order:
a. denying the Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and
b. granting the Plaintiffs' motion to proceed as a class.
The Court certified this class: First-time fliers of Spirit who
purchased their Spirit flight through the six OTAs already at issue
-- Expedia, Travelocity, Kiwi, CheapOair, CheapTickets, and BookIt
-- during the period of Aug. 31, 2011, through May 3, 2017, and
whose claims are governed by U.S. law.
I. Introduction
The Plaintiffs in the action allege that they purchased tickets to
fly on Spirit, a low-cost carrier, between May 2012 and July 2017.
Given historical practices in the airline industry, they say, they
understood the advertised price of their tickets to include the
right to bring carry-on bags on board, and were surprised when
Spirit informed them -- generally during the boarding process --
that they would have to pay extra for the privilege. They bring the
action for breach of contract and seek certification of a class of
first-time Spirit flyers.
The judge previously assigned to the case dismissed the Plaintiffs'
claims, but the Second Circuit vacated and remanded on the issue of
whether the passengers' contracts included the right to take
carry-on items onboard. Spirit now moves for summary judgment, and
the Plaintiffs move for class certification.
II. Background
Since August 2010, Defendant Spirit has charged passengers for
carry-on items. Under Spirit's policy, passengers were allowed to
carry on one size-restricted "personal item" free of charge. Spirit
described this item as "something like a small backpack or purse."
Spirit charged for any carry-on items that were bigger than, or in
addition to, the allotted personal item. These rules -- and the
cost per carry-on item -- changed over the years, and depended on
when the passenger made payment (in advance versus at the gate).
The Plaintiffs purchased Spirit tickets between May 2012 and July
2017 through six online travel agents, or "OTAs." The OTAs were
Expedia, Travelocity, BookIt, CheapTickets, CheapOair, and Kiwi.
The Plaintiffs allege that neither these agents nor Spirit informed
them that Spirit would charge fees for carry-on bags. They also
contend that these charges came as a surprise because, during the
time period at issue, "it was overwhelmingly the norm in the U.S.
that a personal item and one carry-on were included in the price of
an airline ticket." Spirit does not dispute that prior to 2012, it
was the "near uniform" practice of airlines in the U.S. not to
charge passengers for carry-on bags.
Since at least 2012, Spirit maintained a "Contract of Carriage"
document ("COCD") on its website -- a document Spirit invokes. The
COCD has a section called "Carry-On Baggage." From January 2012
through April 2014, that section of the COCD stated that one
"carry-on bag is permitted in the aircraft cabin" and that
customers could also bring one personal item on board. It said that
fees would apply for personal items exceeding the permitted
dimensions, but it did not specifically mention fees for carry-ons.
Later -- beginning in April 2014 -- the COCD added language that
one "carry-on bag is permitted in the aircraft cabin for a
charge."
The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit against Spirit in August 2017.
They filed their second amended complaint -- the operative
complaint -- in May 2018, alleging breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and fraud. On Nov. 26, 2018, the assigned judge
dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims in their entirety. As relevant in
the matter, the district court held that the Airline Deregulation
Act ("ADA"), 49 U.S.C. Section 41713(b)(1), preempted the
Plaintiffs' breach-of-contract claim. The Plaintiffs appealed,
pursuing only the breach-of-contract claim.
The Second Circuit vacated the decision on the breach-of-contract
claim (but not the other claims) and remanded. It held that the ADA
did not preempt the Plaintiffs' contract claim and explained that
"whether, in light of state-law principles of contract
interpretation, the carriage of the Plaintiffs' carry-on items was
in fact within the scope of Spirit's obligations, is a question for
the district court to consider in the first instance." On that
question, the Court of Appeals "concluded only that, in light of
what appear to be ambiguities in the contract that the Plaintiffs
allege Spirit to have breached, and our conclusion that ADA
preemption does not apply, Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim was
not dismissible on the pleadings." Citing prior Circuit precedent,
the panel held that the "price" term in Spirit's contract with its
passengers was "an ambiguous term" -- specifically as to whether
the price included the right to carry on one or more items.
III. Discussion
A. Spirit's Motion for Summary Judgment
Spirit's summary judgment motion raises two primary questions: (1)
whether the "price" term of the contract included carry-on bags, as
a matter of New York contract law, and (2) whether Spirit
successfully incorporated its Contract of Carriage document by
reference into the ticket authorizing Plaintiffs' travel on Spirit.
If the answer to either question is yes, summary judgment is
appropriate. Judge Komitee concludes that the answer to both
questions, however, is no.
Judge Komitee will deny Spirit's motion for summary judgment. He
holds that certain disputes of fact remain on the state-law
contract analysis of whether a reasonable consumer would have
understood the "price" term to include carry-ons. Specifically, the
parties dispute whether industry practice would have put passengers
on notice during the relevant time period, and whether common
characteristics of the OTA disclosures (e.g., "baggage fee" links)
would have informed them that carry-ons were excluded from the
price paid. A dispute of fact also remains as to whether Spirit
complied with the FAA regulations to incorporate by reference its
COCD into Plaintiffs' contracts; this question will be resolved by
determining whether Spirit took the requisite steps under Section
253.
Spirit also seeks dismissal of Plaintiff Amemado's claim on the
ground that it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
Judge Komitee agrees. He explains that New York's borrowing
statute, C.P.L.R. Section 202, provides that "when a nonresident
sues on a cause of action accruing outside New York, the cause of
action must be timely under the limitation periods of both New York
and the jurisdiction where the cause of action accrued." New York
law locates the cause of action for breach of contract causing
financial harm at 'the place of injury,' which 'usually is where
the plaintiff resides and sustains the economic impact of the
loss.'"
Plaintiff Amemado is a resident of Ontario, Canada, and it is
undisputed that he resided there when he booked his Spirit ticket
in June 2014. Ontario's two-year statute of limitations for
breach-of-contract claims thus applies. Because the litigation was
not filed until Aug. 31, 2017 -- over three years after he
purchased his ticket -- his claim is barred and will be dismissed.
B. Motion for Class Certification
The Plaintiffs move to certify a class under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposed class would include
first-time fliers of Spirit Airlines who purchased their Spirit
flight through certain OTAs during the period Aug. 31, 2011,
through July 31, 2017.
Spirit opposes the motion for class certification. It contends that
the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy three factors: "commonality" under
Rule 23(a), and "predominance" and "superiority" under Rule
23(b)(3).
Judge Komitee concludes that the Plaintiffs have carried their
burden on these issues for class certification. However, he
re-defines the proposed class slightly: The class will be comprised
of first-time fliers of Spirit who purchased their Spirit flight
through any of the six OTAs already at issue, during the period of
Aug. 31, 2011 through May 3, 2017 (instead of Aug. 31, 2022), and
whose claims are governed by U.S. law.
The reason for this new end to the date range is that, it is
undisputed that Spirit made its COCD publicly available at airports
(and thus complied with at least that requirement of Section 253)
as of at least May 3, 2017. The reason for limiting the OTAs to the
six already at issue is that the Court has already examined those
six OTAs and determined that common questions exist across them.
Judge Komitee concludes that the Plaintiffs have met the
requirements for class certification under Rule 23 by a
preponderance of the evidence. The class certification is
appropriate notwithstanding minor differences between the six OTAs
at issue. If Judge Komitee deems it necessary or appropriate, as a
matter of prudent case management, to certify sub-classes at future
stages of the litigation, he will do so.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Komitee denied the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment. However, he dismissed Plaintiff
Amemado's claim because it is time-barred.
Judge Komitee granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, with some modifications. Specifically, he certified
the following class: First-time fliers of Spirit who purchased
their Spirit flight through the six OTAs already at issue --
Expedia, Travelocity, Kiwi, CheapOair, CheapTickets, and BookIt --
during the period of Aug. 31, 2011, through May 3, 2017, and whose
claims are governed by U.S. law.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/36x4wcvp from Leagle.com.
ST. LOUIS, MO: Seeks to Defer Class Certification Bid Response
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Derrick Jones, Jerome
Jones, and Darnell Rusan, v. City of St. Louis, et al., Case No.
4:21-cv-00600-HEA (E.D. Mo.), the Defendants City of St. Louis,
Direll Alexander, Javon Fowlkes, Aisha Turner and Michelle Lewis,
ask the Court to enter an order that their response to Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification be deferred until the Court has
ruled on Plaintiffs' pending Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on March
15, 2022, the same day they filed their motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint.
The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification relies on the newly
articulated class action allegations in the proposed Second Amended
Complaint which was attached to their motion for leave to amend.
The Defendants' have requested additional time to file their
response in opposition to the Motion for Leave to File a Second
Amended Complaint, for reasons articulated in their Motion for
Extension of Time.
St. Louis is a major city in Missouri along the Mississippi River.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 22, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uZQelS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Catherine Dierker, Esq.
Adriano Martinez, Esq.
ASSISTANT CITY COUNSELOR
1200 Market Street
City Hall Room 314
St. Louis, MO 63103
Telephone: (314) 622-3786
Facsimile: (314) 622-4956
E-mail: dierkerc@stlouis-mo.gov
martineza@stlouis-mo.gov
STERLING BANCORP: Settlement Deal in OPPRS Suit Wins Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Bancorp, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 31, 2022, that a settlement agreement
for shareholder class action captioned "Oklahoma Police Pension and
Retirement System v. Sterling Bancorp, Inc., et al.," Case No.
5:20-cv-10490-JEL-EAS, filed on February 26, 2020 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, was granted
final approval on September 23, 2021.
On April 16, 2021, the plaintiff, the company and each of the other
defendants entered into the final settlement agreement and
submitted it to the court, which granted final approval on
September 23, 2021. The final agreement provides for a single
$12,500 cash payment in exchange for the release of all of the
defendants from all alleged claims.
Sterling is a unitary savings and loan holding company
headquartered in Southfield, Michigan offering a range of loan
products to the residential and commercial markets, as well as
retail banking services through its 28 branches, including 20
branches in the San Francisco area, six in greater Los Angeles, one
branch in New York City and its headquarters branch in Michigan.
SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY: Durbeck, Foti Seek to Certify Class of Students
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Durbeck v. Suffolk
University, Case No. 1:20-cv-10985-WGY (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs
Julia Durbeck and Anna Francesca Foti ask the Court to enter an
order:
1. certifying the following plaintiff class:
"All students enrolled in an in-person/on-campus based
program or classes at Suffolk University ("Suffolk"), and
not any separate Suffolk online programs only, before
March 11, 2020, who paid Suffolk any of the following
costs for the Spring 2020 semester: (a) Tuition, and/or
(b) Fees; and
2. appointing them as representatives of the Class; and
3. appointing the Anastapoulo Law Firm and Pastor Law Office
LLP as class counsel.
The motion relates to all actions in re: suffolk university Covid
refund litigation.
Suffolk University is a private research university in Boston,
Massachusetts.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v7heA2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Pastor, Esq.
PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP
63 Atlantic Avenue, 3d Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 742-9700
Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com
- and -
Richard E. Levine, Esq.
STANZLER LEVINE, LLC
65 William Street, Suite 205
Wellesley, MA 02481
Telephone: (617) 482-3198
E-mail: rlevine@stanzlerlevine.com
- and -
Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM LLP
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com
roy@akimlawfirm.com
blake@akimlawfirm.com
SUNRUN INC: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Tavarez Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTORIANO TAVAREZ,
Individually, and On behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Sunrun Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09781-KPF (S.D.N.Y), the Hon. Judge
Katherine Polk Failla entered a civil case management plan and
scheduling order:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed July 22, 2022
no later than:
-- All expert discovery, including Sept. 9, 2022
reports, production of underlying
documents, and depositions, shall
be completed no later than:
-- Initial requests for production of May 2, 2022
documents shall be served by:
-- Depositions of fact witnesses shall June 24, 2022
be completed by:
Sunrun Inc. is an American provider of residential solar panels and
home batteries, headquartered in San Francisco, California.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KvNsvh at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William J. Downes, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
www.mizrahikroub.com
200 Vesey St., 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 595-6200
Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
- and -
Katherine B. Harrison, Esq.
PADUANO WEINTRAUB LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas Ninth Floor
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 785 9100
E-mail: kh@pwlawyers
SYGMA NETWORK: Clow Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as William J. Clow, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The SYGMA Network Inc., Case No.
2022LA000004, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Fifth
Judicial Circuit, Vermilion County, Illinois, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of Illinois on March 25, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-01094-CSB-EIL to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The SYGMA Network -- https://www.sygmanetwork.com/ -- is a leading
food service supplier that specializes in serving large, national
restaurant chains, including Wendy's.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Neiman, Esq.
ROMANUCCI & BLANDIN LLC
321 N Clark Street, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: (312) 458-1000
Email: dneiman@rblaw.net
- and -
Miranda L. Soucie, Esq.
SPIROS LAW PC
2807 North Vermilion, Suite 3
Danville, IL 61832
Phone: (217) 443-4343
Fax: (217) 443-4545
Email: msoucie@spiroslaw.com
- and -
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Megan E. Shannon, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 233-1550
Fax: (312) 233-1560
Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
cmitchell@stephanzouras.com
jzouras@stephanzouras.com
mshannon@stephanzouras.com
- and -
Blake James Kolesa, Esq.
RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP
70 West Madison St., Suite 2900
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 471-8732
Email: bkolesa@rshc-law.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 416-8185
Fax: (312) 416-8195
Email: bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com
TAPESTRY INC: Court Strikes Class Allegations in Downing Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Meghan Downing v.
Tapestry, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-06381-MCS-GJS (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Marc C. Scarsi entered an order striking the class
allegations in the Complaint because the Plaintiff failed to file a
timely class certification motion and otherwise prosecute her class
claims.
The case shall proceed on an individual basis. The Court sets trial
and pretrial dates in a concurrently filed Order Re: Jury Trial,
the Court says.
Tapestry is an American multinational luxury fashion holding
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36Tl2wW at no extra charge.[CC]
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: Hines Files Suit in Tex. Sup. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Texas A&M University
12th Man Foundation. The case is styled as Nathan Hines,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Petitioner v. Texas A&M University 12th Man Foundation, Respondent,
Case No. 22-0261 (Tex. Sup. Ct., Danbury Cty., April 4, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Motion for Extension of Time to File
Petition for Review pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 53.7(f)."
Texas A&M University -- https://www.tamu.edu/ -- is a public
land-grant research university in College Station, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mr. William (Bill) J. Cobb III, Esq.
Mr. Blair A. Bisbey, Esq.
Mr. Bruce M. Partain, Esq.
Ms. Ann Stehling, Esq.
Mr. Zachary R. Celeste, Esq.
Mr. Claude M. McQuarrie III, Esq.
TFORCE LOGISTICS: Seeks Denial of Lim Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANTIAGO LIM individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TFORCE
LOGISTICS, LLC; TFORCE FINAL MILE WEST, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. (), Defendants TForce Final Mile West, LLC and
TForce Logistics, LLC, ask the Court to enter an order denying
class certification of Plaintiff Santiago Lim's claims.
Specifically, the Defendants' hereby move this Court for an
order:
1. That Lim's class claims be denied as he is not
representative of the nearly 86% of putative class members
who signed different contracts with different arbitration
clauses and he therefore lacks standing to represent 7
class members that signed different contracts and
arbitration agreements, or, in the alternative, that
putative class members who signed different contracts with
different arbitration clauses than Plaintiff Lim, be
removed from the putative class;
2. That Plaintiff Lim's Eighth Cause of Action for failure to
provide Accurate Wage Statements under Section 226 of the
California Labor Code be dismissed as time barred because
the claims were filed a year and a half after the statute
of limitations on his claim expired and accordingly, or,
in the alternative, Plaintiff should not be found to be a
proper class representative for this cause of action.
TForce offers next-day delivery solutions.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NXfp1h at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul Marron, Esq.
Steven C. Rice, Esq.
Paul B. Arenas, Esq.
MARRON LAWYERS, APC
5000 East Spring Street, Suite 580
Long Beach, CA 90815
Telephone: (562) 432-7422
Facsimile: (562) 683-2721
E-mail: pmarron@marronlaw.com
srice@marronlaw.com
parenas@marronlaw.com
TURTLE ISLAND: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Turtle Island Foods,
SPC. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Turtle Island Foods, SPC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02826 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Turtle Island Foods -- http://tofurky.com/-- is an American
company founded in 1980 in Forest Grove, Oregon and headquartered
in Hood River, which produces Tofurky, a popular vegetarian and
vegan alternative to turkey, as well other meatless products.[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
UNILEVER UNITED: Seeks to Vacate May 23 Settlement Conference
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE KRAUSE-PETTAI,
SCOTT GRIMM, STEVE TABU LANIER, CHRISTY STEVENS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNILEVER UNITED
STATES, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
3:20-cv-01672-LL-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order that the current May 23, 2022 Mandatory Settlement
Conference be vacated and agree to the following deadlines:
Current New
Deadline Deadline
-- Expert Designation April 15, 2022 May 6, 2022
-- Supplemental Expert May 13, 2022 June 3, 2022
Designation
-- Fact Discovery May 27, 2022 June 24, 2022
-- Expert Disclosures June 24, 2022 July 29, 2022
-- File Motion for Class May 13, 2022 July 29, 2022
Certification
-- Contradictory Rebuttal July 22, 2022 August 16, 2022
Disclosures
The Plaintiffs filed this action on August 26, 2020, followed by a
First Amended Complaint on December 2, 2020. The Court granted in
part and denied in part Unilever's Motion to Dismiss on April 23,
2021. The Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on May 6,
2021.
On June 3, 2021, the Court held a Case Management Conference and
issued a Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pre-Trial
Proceedings, in which it was initially ordered that Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification be filed by January 9 14, 2022.
On August 20, 2021, the Court denied Unilever's Motion to Dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint. After this ruling, Plaintiffs served
Defendant with written discovery, including Requests for
Admissions, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of
Documents, all served on October 1, 2021.
Unilever served all Plaintiffs with Requests for Production and
Special Interrogatories on October 15, 2021.
The parties have continued with discovery. Plaintiffs have informed
Unilever that they need additional documents before proceeding with
Unilever's 30(b)(6) deposition(s), and will be serving additional
Interrogatories and Requests for Production based on Defendant's
responses to the first set of discovery prior to the deadline for
class certification.
A copy of the Parties motion dated March 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rb8MP6 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joel Gordon, Esq.
MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
marlinsaltzman.com
29800 Agoura Rd., Suite 210
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Telephone: (818) 991-8080
The Defendants are represented by:
Naoki S. Kaneko, Esq.
James P. Muehlberger, Esq.
Joan R. Camagong, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
Jamboree Center
5 Park Plaza, Suite 1600
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 475-1500
Facsimile: (949) 475-0016
E-mail: nkaneko@shb.com
jmuehlberger@shb.com
jcamagong@shb.com
UNITED STATES: Seeks May 20 Extension to File Class Cert Response
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN JOHNSON, et al., v.
FRANK KENDALL, Secretary of the Air Force, Case No.
3:21-cv-01214-CSH (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs Martin Johnson and
Jane Doe, and the proposed class of United States Air Force (USAF)
veterans they seek to represent, and the United States Attorney's
Office, District of Connecticut, and the USAF Personnel and
Information Law Division on behalf of Defendant Frank Kendall, ask
the Court to enter an order to:
(1) refer this matter to a Magistrate Judge for a settlement
conference,
(2) extend the deadline for Defendants to file their response
to Plaintiffs' class certification motion until May 20,
2022, and
(3) extend the deadline for the parties to confer regarding
discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(f) until May 20, 2022.
The United States Air Force is the air service branch of the United
States Armed Forces, and is one of the eight U.S. uniformed
services
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ksf84d at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Bassali, Esq.
Yael Caplan, Esq.
Bardia Faghihvaseghi, Esq.
Alexis Kallen, Esq.
Shariful Khan, Esq.
Meghan E. Brooks, Esq.
Michael J. Wishnie, Esq.
VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES CLINIC
JEROME N. FRANK LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION
Yale Law School
P.O. Box 209090
New Haven, CT 06520-9090
Telephone: (203) 432-4800
E-mail: michael.wishnie@ylsclinics.org
- and -
Susan J. Kohlmann, Esq.
Jeremy M. Creelan, Esq.
Jacob Tracer, Esq.
Laurel A. Raymond, pro hac vice
Jenner & Block LLP
1155 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-2711
Telephone: (212) 891-1600
Facsimile: (212) 891-1699
E-mail: skohlmann@jenner.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Leonard C. Boyle, Esq.
Natalie N. Elicker, Esq.
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
157 Church Street
New Haven, CT 06510
Telephone: (203) 821-3700
Facsimile: (203) 773-5373
E-mail: Natalie.Elicker@usdoj.gov
- and -
Ryan V. Haslam, MAJ, USAF
Litigation Attorney
MILITARY PERSONNEL LAW AND LITIGATION BRANCH
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S CORPS
URGENT COMPANY: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Urgent Company,
Inc. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. The Urgent Company, Inc, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02827 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Urgent Company -- https://theurgentcompany.com/ -- manufactures
an animal-free, vegan, lactose-free, made with plants, non-dairy,
dairy ice cream.[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
VAN LEEUWEN ICE CREAM: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Van Leeuwen Ice Cream
LLC. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Van Leeuwen Ice Cream LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02828 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Van Leeuwen Ice Cream -- https://vanleeuwenicecream.com/ -- is a
maker of ice cream made from natural ingredients.[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
VILLAGE SUPER: Rodriguez-Mendez Seeks Conditional Collective Status
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YOE RODRIGUEZ-MENDEZ, on
behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v.
VILLAGE SUPER MARKET, INC., et al, Case No. 1:21-cv-08671-JMF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
conditional collective certification and for court facilitation of
notice pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section 216(b).
Village Super is a retailer of food and nonfood products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 22,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35WnBO2
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: McMahon Files Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. The case is styled as Price McMahon, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01704-SDW-JBC (D.N.J., March 25,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. --
https://www.volkswagengroupofamerica.com/ -- is the North American
operational headquarters, and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of
automobile companies of Germany.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 994-1700
Fax: (973) 994-1744
Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
WALGREENS BOOTS: Faces Class Suit Over Rite-Aid Merger
------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2022, that it is
facing a securities class action with regards to its Rite-Aid
merger.
On December 11, 2017, purported Rite Aid shareholders filed an
amended complaint in a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania arising out
of transactions contemplated by the merger agreement between the
company and Rite Aid. The amended complaint alleges that the
company and certain of its officers made false or misleading
statements regarding the transactions. The court denied the
company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 15,
2019. The company filed an answer and affirmative defenses, and the
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Fact
discovery has concluded and expert discovery is ongoing.
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is into the operations of
retail-drug stores and proprietary stores.
WALGREENS BOOTS: Faces Shareholder Suit in IL Court
---------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2022, that it is
facing a securities class action in federal court in the Northern
District of Illinois against Walgreen Co. and certain former
officers of Walgreen Co. captioned "Washtenaw County Employees'
Retirement System v. Walgreen Co. et al.," Case No. 1:15-cv-3187 in
April 10, 2015.
The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities
laws arising out of certain public statements the company made
regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals. The company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action complaint filed on August 17,
2015 was granted in part and denied in part on September 30, 2016.
The court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification on
March 29, 2018, and plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on
December 19, 2018. A motion to dismiss the first amended complaint
was granted in part and denied in part on September 23, 2019. Fact
discovery and expert discovery have concluded.
On November 2, 2021, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part defendants'
cross motion. On March 2, 2022 the court granted the company's
motion to reconsider a portion of that ruling.
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is into the operations of
retail-drug stores and proprietary stores.
WDI INTERNATIONAL: Faces Liang Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An Yong Liang, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees
v. WDI International, Inc., a business; Jun Horiuchi, an
individual; and Does 1-20, Case No. 22STCV11574 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., April 5, 2022) arises from the Defendants' failure to
provide mandated timely meal periods and/or rest periods and
related break premium pay for missed or late breaks, failure to
provide second meal and/or rest break after working more than 10
hours per day, failure to keep accurate time records regarding meal
breaks, and failure to provide safe working conditions, among other
violations of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt employee of the Defendant in
California for about two years until July 2021.
WDI International, Inc. owns and/or operates restaurants under the
names: Tony Roma's, Capricciosa, Wolfgang's Steakhouse, Gen Korean
BBQ, TimHoWan, Appetito Wine Bar, TR FireGrill, Taormina, among
others.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelly Y. Chen, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KELLY Y. CHEN
13200 Crossroads Parkway North Suite 475
City of Industry, CA 91746
Telephone: (562) 692-5828
Facsimile: (626) 389-5455
E-mail: Attorney@KellyChenLaw.com
WELLS FARGO: Fails to Protect Customers From Scam, Stock Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA L. STOCK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A.; and EARLY WARNING SERVICES, LLC D/B/A ZELLEPAY.COM,
Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-00763 (C.D. Cal., April 5, 2022)
arises from the Defendant's failure to take appropriate steps to
protect consumers from scams in connection with the Zelle mobile
application, which often results in losses of thousands of dollars
to individual consumers and customers, including Plaintiff.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other class members
were fraudulently induced by a third-party scammer involving the
Zelle mobile application into sharing Wells Fargo account access
information. The third party then used the information fraudulently
obtained from Plaintiff and other class members to make
unauthorized electronic fund transfers from the accounts of
Plaintiff and other class members from their Wells Fargo accounts.
As a direct and proximate result of the alleged conduct of Wells
Fargo Bank and WFC, Plaintiff and other Class Members were unable
to reclaim funds that were fraudulently taken from their accounts
with Wells Fargo, asserts the complaint.
Wells Fargo & Company is a diversified financial services company
headquartered in San Francisco, California that provides banking,
insurance, investments, mortgage banking, and consumer finance
through banking stores, the Internet, and other distribution
channels to customers, businesses, and other institutions in all 50
states and in other countries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Gil Melili, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
gil@kazlg.com
- and -
Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108
St. George, UT 84790
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: jason@kazlg.com
WOW MEDIA: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wow Media Products,
Inc. The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Wow Media Products, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02799 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wow Media Products, Inc. doing business as PureWow --
https://www.purewow.com/ -- provides free daily email and website
for women.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
ZWANGER & PESIRI: Class Discovery Stayed in Sali Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sali v. Zwanger & Pesiri
Radiology Group, LLP, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00275-FB-CLP
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Frederic Block entered an order that:
1. Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation are overrruled; and
2. The Report and Recommendation is adopted as follows:
merits discovery will be completed; class discovery is
stayed until after summary judgment; and the motion for
class certification is denied without prejudice to refile
after summary judgment.
The Court said, "The Plaintiff objects to the discovery holding.
Defendants sought to bifurcate merit-based and class certification
discovery and allow only merit-based discovery to be completed
before summary judgment. The parties agreed that discovery has been
substantially completed, and the Magistrate analyzed that request
as a stay of additional discovery. She recommended "stay[ing] all
remaining discovery."
The Plaintiff requests that she be able to complete merits
discovery before summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge has broad
discretion regarding discovery rulings. The Court adopts the R&R to
the extent that class discovery should be stayed until summary
judgment has been decided and clarifies that Plaintiff may complete
merits discovery.
Nilgun Sali, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, brought this action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
On January 10, 2022, Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak issued a
Report and Recommendation (R&”), recommending that either 1)
Plaintiff's pending Motion for Class Certification be held in
abeyance (or denied without prejudice to renew) until the
resolution of Defendants' motions for summary judgment and
Defendants' motions to stay class discovery be granted, or 2) in
the alternative, Plaintiff's motion for class certification be
denied as it does not satisfy the superiority requirement, and the
case be ordered to proceed.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JqcMlj at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
KLEINMAN, LLC
626 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556
- and -
Francis R. Greene, Esq.
GREENE CONSUMER LAW
1954 First Street, No. 154
Highland Park, IL 60035
The Defendant Zwanger & Pesiri is represented by:
Patrick McCormick, Esq.
COMPOLO, MIDDLETON & MCCORMICK, LLP
4175 Veterans Memorial Highway, Ste. 400
Ronkonkoma, NY 11779
The Defendant Vanvorst Law Firm, PLLC is represented by:
Mark K. Anesh, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS
BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
77 Water Street, Ste. 2100
New York, NY 10005
*********
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 ***