/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220418.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, April 18, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 71
Headlines
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products "Defective," Vetters Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Smith Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Vigus Suit Says
3M COMPANY: Faces Kalve Suit Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS
3M COMPANY: Garcia Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Garland Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Glisson Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Kappel Sues Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects
3M COMPANY: Oliveto Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Walz Sues Over AFFF Products' Risk to Human Health
ABBVIE INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 6 Deadline
ABOFF'S INC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ACUITY-CHS LLC: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Arbuthnot Says
ALEX DOE: Birmingham's Bid for Alternative Service Partly Granted
ALIDORO II LLC: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ALLIED POWER: Faces Wagner Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALPINE FURNITURE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALTAMAREA INTELLECTUAL: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
AMBORELLA ORGANICS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMERICA'S FOOD BASKET: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
AMERICAN HONDA: Preston Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to N.D. Ill.
AMERICAN STANDARD: Bell Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
AMERICAN TUNA: Judge Moves Tuna Suit From New York to California
AMTROL INC: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Cordero Suit
ANALOG DEVICES: Bouvy's Class Certification Bid Tossed as Moot
ANCIENT BRANDS: Caro-Greene Sues Over Mislabeled Grain Products
APPFOLIO INC: Shipman Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
APPLE INC: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Ramos Suit Alleges
APTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL: Nieman Suit Removed to C.D. California
ARCIMOTO INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit vs CEO Stayed
BACKSTREETS GRILL: Conditional Collective Certification Sought
BANCO SANTANDER: 5 Mexican Gov't Bonds Antitrust Suits Consolidated
BANK OF AMERICA: Bruin Sues Over Misrepresentation of Transfer Fees
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Ahuja Suit Over Alleged EFTA Violations
BANK OF GUAM: Bonifacio Files Suit in D. Guam
BARIATRICPAL LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BDO USA LLP: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Gaines Suit Alleges
BEAM ORGANICS: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BIG WALL DECOR: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Faces Securities Suit in Ontario Court
BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Illegal Termination Suit Ongoing in Ontario
BLACKBERRY LTD: To Pay $165M to Settle Lawsuit Over BlackBerry 10
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Potthoff Sues Over Denied Goof Proof Coverage Claim
BODY RESTORE: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BOOT BARN INC: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BOUNTIFUL BERRY: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BURGER KING: Coleman Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising
BURT'S BEES: Bruno Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. California
BUYK CORP: Faces Carse Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. New York
c
C.I. LOBSTER: Pagan Seeks Conditional Cert. of Collective Action
CACIO E. PEPE LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Vargas Suit Alleges
CASA DE FANELLI: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHANCE SOBRIETY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Denison Suit Alleges
CHARTER FOODS: Judge Endorses Denial of Conditional Status
CHEETAH MOBILE: Wins Dismissal of Securities Class Action
CHRIS CRAFT: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CLARENDON COUNTY, SC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beemer Alleges
CLIO SNACKS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CLOUDFLARE INC: Xu Class Suit Seeks to Enjoin Stockholder Vote
CONFLUENCE HEALTH: Fired Employees File Suit Over Vaccine Mandate
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Perrong Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Charleston
CREDIT ASSOCIATES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Hopper FCRA Suit
CV SCIENCES: Faces Ruth Securities Suit in Nevada Court
CV SCIENCES: Settlement in Smith Suit Get Initial Approval
CVB INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DAIRY FARMERS: Conspires to Reduce Grade A Milk Price, Othart Says
DC METROPOLITAN POLICE: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Sept. 1
DLH HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bendolph Suit Alleges
DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE: Faces Benson Consumer Suit
DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD: Helms File Bid for Class Certification
DYKES LUMBER: Case Management Plan Entered in Ortega Class Suit
ECO-BAGS PRODUCTS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Curts Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
ELECTRO-OPTIX INC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ENERFIN RESOURCES: Harris Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
EPIC LANDSCAPE: Settlement in Albelo Suit Gets Final Nod
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Seeks to Decertify Classes in Munguia-Brown
EVENT MEDIC: Munoz Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
EXCLUSIVE ROSA'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perez Suit Alleges
FARMERS INSURANCE: Joint Stipulation Sched Hearing Date Denied
FARMLAND PARTNERS: Suit Over Alleged Stock Price Drop Dismissed
FIESTA FLOORING: Ariz. App. Affirms Dismissal of Hannah's Claims
FIRST STUDENT: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued to May 26
FORD MOTOR: California Court Denies Bids to Strike in Miller Suit
FORD MOTOR: Weidman Class Status Bid Partly OK'd
FORMAN MILLS: Underpays Loss Prevention Managers, Rodriguez Claims
FORSTER & GARBUS: New York Court Dismisses Green FDCPA Class Suit
FRITO-LAY NORTH: Parrish Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Workers
GENWORTH LIFE: Loses Bid to Enforce Class Settlement in TVPX Suit
GEO SECURE: Castillo Labor Code Suit Removed to S.D. California
GEOPARK LIMITED: Faces Suit Over Disputed Oil Exploration Activity
GERBER PRODUCTS: Cullors Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. California
GOLD FIELDS: Faces Suit Over Respiratory Health Issues
GREENIX HOLDINGS: Hutt Seeks Leave to Correct Class Cert Bid Filing
GROSSMONT HOSPITAL: Cranton Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
HEIDI WASHINGTON: Court Junks Davis Bid for TRO, Class Status
HELION TECHNOLOGIES: Johnson Denied of Liquidated Damages Award
HOME SECURITY: Foy FTSA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
ICECURE MEDICAL: Faces Securities Class Suit in Israel
ICECURE MEDICAL: Faces Securities Suit in Israeli Court
INCGSGI INC: Bid for Conditional Certification in Vela Suit Denied
INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INT'L: Romita Securities Suit Settled
INTELLIRAD IMAGING: Horvat Alleges Unfair Debt Collection Practices
JACKSONVILLE UNIVERSITY: M.D. Florida Stays Allen Suit Until May 31
JDM WASHINGTON: Court Grants Vignola Leave to Amend Complaint
JSG BABYFOOD: Baby Food Products Contain Toxic Metals, Suit Alleges
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Whitley County Suit Says
JUUL LABS: Garrett-Keyser-Butler Sues Over Youth Health Crisis
JUUL LABS: Kankakee Valley Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM: Agrees to Pay $2.5-M Settlement in Toll Suit
KELLER WILLIAMS: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid
KISLING NESTICO: Appeals Court OKs Class-Action Lawsuit
KSK PRIVATE LABEL: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LA BORING LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Carr Suit Alleges
LA RUANA BAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hernandez Suit Alleges
LAIRD SUPERFOOD: Gwinn Files Suit in S.D. New York
LEPRINO FOODS: Howell's Certification Bid Granted in Part
LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Aley Files TCPA Suit in N.D. New York
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Faces Stinson Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MASONITE CORPORATION: Fails to Provide OT Wages, Blakley Alleges
MEDINA CREATIVE: Ohio Court Approves Settlement in Kelly FLSA Suit
MENOLABS LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Wins Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Hamm Suit
META PLATFORMS: District Court Certifies Class in DZ Reserve Suit
MGT CAPITAL: Settlement of Shareholder Row Wins Final Nod
MINIM INC: Schulze Modem Product Litigation Suit Dismissed
MINNESOTA: Daywitt, et al., Lose Class Certification Bid
ML ENTERPRISES: Reyes Partly Wins Bid for Conditional Certification
MODOC TRIBE: Dearry Alleges Improper Debt Collection Practices
MRAE LLC: Faces Cotton Suit Over Unpaid Overtime for Dancers
MY WIRELESS GLA: Tadle Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Coaches Joined the Racial Discrimination Suit
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Titans Named in Flores Suit Over Fake Hiring
NAVIENT CORP: Faces Suit Over Consumer Protection Law Violations
NETFLIX INC: Shiloh Suit Remanded to St. Clair County Circuit Court
NEW YORK TIMES: Perkins NCGS Suit Removed to E.D. North Carolina
NORTH AMERICAN: Advance Trust Files Bid for Class Certification
NORTHWEST NUTRITIONAL: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NOVO BUILDING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Vogt Claims
OATS OVERNIGHT: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OBI SEAFOODS: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to May 24
OLD NAVY: Scheduling Order Entered in Harris Class Action
PELICIA HALL: Court Stays Alexander Class Action
PETROPLEX ACIDIZING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Dahl Alleges
PLUM ORGANICS: Case Schedule Entered in Baby Food Litigation
POWER SOLUTIONS: BIPA Suit in Illinois Remains Stayed
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED: Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Due August 22
RAYMOND JAMES: Young Seeks Blind Customers' Equal Access to Website
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Bumpus, et al., Seek to Certify Classes, Subclass
REDWIRE CORP: Faces Securities Suit in Florida
REGAL CINEMAS: Zimmerman Sues Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages
REGENCY HEALTH: Yaoxiao Li Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Finally OK'd in Securities Suit
REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Net Fund Distribution in Securities Suit OK'd
SCORES HOLDING: Summary Judgment Bids in De Oliveira Suit Granted
SCOTTS COMPANY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Galanti Suit Claims
SELLAS LIFE: Settlement in Securities Wins Final Nod
SEQUANS COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Consolidated Shareholder Suit
SHIRTSPACE: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SHOPIFY INC: Faces Fresh Class-Action Over 2020 Ledger Data Breach
SOURSE INC: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOUTHERN FIDELITY: Thacker Files Bid for Class Cert. Discovery
ST. LOUIS COUNTY JAIL: Calvin Burke Seeks to Certify Classes
TA OPERATING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baker Suit Alleges
TALEN ENERGY: Class Cert Opposition Continued to April 29
TAPESTRY INC: Brooks' Bid to Appoint Interim Class Counsel Denied
TARGET CORP: Rodrigues Sues Over Mislabeled Fish Oil Products
TENARIS SA: Shareholder Suit in NY Court Ongoing
TERRA ORIGIN: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TOYOTA MOTOR: Nazos Sues Over FJ Cruiser Vehicles' Frame Defect
TRUMAN MEARS: Justin Erskine Seeks to Certify Rule 23 class
ULTA SALON: Scheduling Order Entered in Jones Class Action
UNILEVER UNITED: Joint Bid to Continue Class Cert Deadlines OK'd
UNITED EQUITABLE: Ill. App. Affirms Dismissal of Bond's Complaint
UNITED STEEL: Bid to Revisit 5/4/2021 Order in Verso Suit Denied
UNIVERSITY & STATE: Cortes Consumer Suit Goes to S.D. California
UNKNOWN BATHS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
UNKNOWN BURGESS: Willie Curtis Files Bid for Class Certification
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Parties Agree to Conditional Certification
VISIONQUEST NATIONAL: Fails to Provide OT Pay, Andrade Suit Alleges
VRDOLYAK LAW: Faces Alholm Suit in Ill. Over Alleged Wiretapping
WAGEWORKS INC: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Final Approval
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Loses Bid to Toss Mabe's 1st Cause of Action
WALCO FUNDING: Cline EFTA Suit Removed to W.D. Arkansas
WASHINGTON: Sather Loses Class Certification Bid
WEEK PUBLICATIONS: Custard Sues Over Disclosure of Private Info
WELLS FARGO: Burke Sues Over Bank's Mortgage Calculation Errors
WENTZVILLE R-IV SCHOOL DISTRICT: NAACP Seeks to Certify Class
WILLIAMSRDM INC: Underpays Quality Assurance Inspectors, Smith Says
XTEND HEALTHCARE: Castillero Sues Over Violations of WARN Act
XTO ENERGY: Amended Bid for Class Status Filed in Salvatora Suit
YRC INC: Aisha Suit Removed to C.D. California
ZEAL NATURALS: Hayes Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Be A Sponsor
*********
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products "Defective," Vetters Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES VETTERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01088-RMG (D.S.C., April 5, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability,
defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical
monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform Voidable
Transactions Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and commenced
on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via a
right partial nephrectomy.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Smith Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES SMITH and BETTE SMITH, his wife, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case
No. 2:22-cv-01087-RMG (D.S.C., April 5, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning,
design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of
express and implied warranties, wantonness, and per quod claim.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products. Plaintiff James Smith
used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their
intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. He
relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of
the products, says the suit.
As a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, Mr. Smith
was diagnosed with bladder cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Vigus Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RHONDA VIGUS, individually and as Personal
Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of KENNETH W.
VIGUS, deceased, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case
No. 2:22-cv-01081-RMG (D.S.C., April 5, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning,
design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of
express and implied warranties, wantonness, per quod claim, and
survival and wrongful death acts.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products. The Decedent used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition due to
inadequate warning about the products' danger. He relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products,
says the suit.
As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products,
the Decedent was diagnosed with leukemia. The Decedent's diagnosis
caused and/or contributed to his death.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: Faces Kalve Suit Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW KALVE and NORA KALVE, his wife, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case
No. 2:22-cv-01080-RMG (D.S.C., April 5, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning,
design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of
express and implied warranties, wantonness, and per quod claim.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by
Plaintiff Andrew Kalve as a result of his exposure to the
Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing
synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively
known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees, including Mr. Kalve, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products
that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to
human health. Due to inadequate warning, he was exposed to toxic
chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: Garcia Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01089-RMG (D.S.C., April 5, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence,
strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraud by
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform
Voidable Transactions Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and commenced
on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via a
partial nephrectomy.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Garland Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEN GARLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01091-RMG (D.S.C., April 5, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence,
strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraud by
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform
Voidable Transactions Act.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, he was exposed to toxic chemicals and was
diagnosed with testicular cancer and commenced on-going medical
treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via partial right
orchiectomy, says the suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Glisson Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES GLISSON and PAULA HENRY, his wife, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50),
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01082-RMG (D.S.C., April 5, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery,
inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent
concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, wantonness,
and per quod claim.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by
Plaintiff Charles Glisson as a result of his alleged exposure to
the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable
and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees, including Mr. Glisson, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products
that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to
human health. Due to inadequate warning, he was exposed to toxic
chemicals and was diagnosed with lymphoma, says the suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: Kappel Sues Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects
-----------------------------------------------------------
LETICIA KAPPEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01090-RMG (D.S.C., April 5, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence,
strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraud by
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violations of the
Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and California's Unfair
Competition Law.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of her alleged exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care
in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction,
training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their
PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a
danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, she was exposed
to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid disease and
commenced on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical
intervention via a partial thyroidectomy, says the suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Oliveto Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TINA OLIVETO, individually and as Personal
Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of PATRICK
OLIVETO, deceased, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.;
AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case
No. 2:22-cv-01086-RMG (D.S.C., April 5, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning,
design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of
express and implied warranties, wantonness, and survival and
wrongful death acts.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products. The Decedent used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition due to
inadequate warning about the products' danger. He relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products.
As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products,
the Decedent was diagnosed with leukemia. The Decedent's diagnosis
caused and/or contributed to his death.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: Walz Sues Over AFFF Products' Risk to Human Health
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN WALZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case
No. 2:22-cv-01083-RMG (D.S.C., April 5, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning,
design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of
express and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, he was exposed to toxic chemicals and was
diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
ABBVIE INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com)
informs investors that the firm has filed a securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against AbbVie, Inc. (AbbVie) (NYSE: ABBV) on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired AbbVie securities between April 30, 2021, and August 31,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is captioned
Calvin T. Nakata v. AbbVie, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01773.
Important Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired AbbVie securities during the Class Period may, no later
than June 6, 2022, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class.
Kessler Topaz is one of the world's foremost advocates in
protecting the public against corporate fraud and other wrongdoing.
Our securities fraud litigators are regularly recognized as leaders
in the field individually and our firm is both feared and respected
among the defense bar and the insurance bar. We are proud to have
recovered billions of dollars for our clients and the classes of
shareholders we represent.
YOU CAN CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR
BROWSER:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/abbvie-inc?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=abbvie&mktm=r
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: JUNE 6, 2022
CLASS PERIOD: APRIL 30, 2021 through AUGUST 31, 2021
CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:
James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Email at info@ktmc.com
ABBVIE'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
AbbVie is one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies. The
company's revenues will come under significant pressure in the
coming years when its best-selling drug, Humira, will lose patent
protection in 2023. Accordingly, AbbVie's future revenue and
earnings depend in large part on its ability to develop new sources
of revenue to offset Humira's lost sales. Rinvoq-an
anti-inflammatory drug manufactured by AbbVie and used to treat
rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other diseases by inhibiting Janus
kinase (JAK) enzymes-was touted as one such drug. Rinvoq was
initially approved in the United States to treat only moderate to
severe RA. However, AbbVie was actively pursuing additional
treatment indications and, in 2020, asked the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to approve Rinvoq for the treatment of several
other diseases.
As is relevant here, Rinvoq is similar to other JAK inhibitor
drugs, including Xeljanz, manufactured by Pfizer Inc. When the FDA
approved Xeljanz in 2012 for the treatment of RA, it required an
additional safety trial to evaluate Xeljanz's risk of triggering
certain serious side effects. Beginning in February 2019, the FDA
repeatedly warned the public that the safety trial indicated that
Xeljanz's use could lead to serious heart-related issue, cancer,
and other adverse events. Notwithstanding the similarities between
Rinvoq and Xeljanz, during the Class Period, Defendants assured
investors that Rinvoq was far safer than Xeljanz and not subject to
the same regulatory risks.
However, investors began to learn the truth about Rinvoq's
significant risks on June 25, 2021, when AbbVie revealed that the
FDA was delaying its review of expanded treatment applications for
Rinvoq due to the safety concerns associated with Xeljanz. On this
news, the price of AbbVie common stock declined $1.76 per share, or
approximately 1.5%, from a close of $114.74 per share on June 24,
2021, to close at $112.98 per share on June 25, 2021.
Then, on September 1, 2021, the FDA announced that final results
from the Xeljanz safety trial established an increased risk of
serious adverse events, even with low doses of Xeljanz. As a
result, the FDA determined that it would require new and updated
warnings for Xeljanz and Rinvoq because Rinvoq "share[s] similar
mechanisms of action with Xeljanz" and "may have similar risks as
seen in the Xeljanz safety trial." The FDA also indicated that it
would further limit approved indications for Rinvoq as a result of
these safety concerns. On this news, the price of AbbVie common
stock declined $8.51 per share, or more than 7%, from a close of
$120.78 per share on August 31, 2021, to close at $112.27 per share
on September 1, 2021.
After the Class Period, on December 3, 2021, AbbVie announced that
the FDA had updated Rinvoq's label to require additional safety
warnings and limit marketing of Rinvoq to only its use after
treatment with other drugs has failed. On January 11, 2022,
Defendants admitted that these changes to Rinvoq's label would
negatively impact sales, forcing the Company to reduce its
long-term guidance for Rinvoq's sales in 2025.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements,
about the company's business and operations. Specifically,
Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
safety concerns about Xeljanz extended to Rinvoq and other JAK
inhibitors; (2) as a result, it was likely that the FDA would
require additional safety warnings for Rinvoq and would delay the
approval of additional treatment indications for Rinvoq; and (3)
therefore, Defendants' statements about the company's business,
operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis, As a result of
the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant
decline in the market value of AbbVie's securities, AbbVie
investors have suffered significant damages.
WHAT CAN I DO?
AbbVie investors may, no later than June 6, 2022, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages AbbVie investors who have suffered
significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more
information.
WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?
A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. [GN]
ABOFF'S INC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aboff's, Inc. The
case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Aboff's, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02007-BMC (E.D.N.Y., April 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Aboff's, Inc. -- https://aboffs.com/ -- provides painting services.
The Company interior and exterior paints, varnishes, wallpaper,
stains, and decorating elements.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
ACUITY-CHS LLC: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Arbuthnot Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON ARBUTHNOT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACUITY – CHS, LLC f/k/a
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No.
6:22-cv-00658 (M.D. Fla., April 4, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for negligence, unjust enrichment, and negligence per
se.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard its customers' sensitive personally identifiable
information (PII) following an unauthorized access to its system.
Despite learning of the data breach, the Defendant waited over from
September 30, 2020 to February 15, 2022 to notify the Plaintiff and
Class members of the data breach and/or inform them that their PII
was compromised. As a result, the Plaintiff and other Class members
suffered present injury and damages in the form of identity theft,
loss of value of their PII, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of
their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of
the unauthorized access, exfiltration, and subsequent criminal
misuse of their sensitive and highly personal information.
Acuity - CHS, LLC, formerly known as Comprehensive Health Services
LLC, is a subsidiary of Acuity International doing business in
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Patrick A. Barthle, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 222-2434
E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
pbarthle@forthepeople.com
- and –
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440
Washington, DC 20015-2052
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com
- and –
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
ALEX DOE: Birmingham's Bid for Alternative Service Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, grants in part
and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion for alternative service
in the lawsuit captioned RYAN BIRMINGHAM, et al., Plaintiffs v.
ALEX DOE; JOHN DOES 1-3; OLGA ABRYKOSOVA, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 21-CV-23472-SCOLA/GOODMAN (S.D. Fla.).
The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Alternative Service by (i) email; (ii) social media direct
messaging (i.e., Facebook or LinkedIn); (iii) FedEx International
Mail, return receipt requested; or (iv) publication under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) and Incorporated Memorandum of Law
("Motion").
United States District Court Judge Robert N. Scola referred the
matter to Judge Goodman. Judge Scola's referral Order expressly
mentions 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A) and Rule 1(c) of the Local
Magistrate Judge Rules. Both the statute and the rule concern
non-dispositive motions, which means Judge Scola's Order requests
Judge Goodman to issue an Order, not a Report and Recommendations.
Background
On Sept. 29, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint for Damages and
Injunctive Relief, alleging that the Defendants operated the
unincorporated entity ROFX.net, which provided unregulated
financial services through its web-based platform to investors
around the world. As a purported class, the Plaintiffs alleged
counts of Common Law Fraud, Unjust Enrichment, Violation of 18
U.S.C. Section 1962(c), Violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d), and
Conspiracy.
On Nov. 5, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved the Court for permission to
serve unreachable foreign Defendants via electronic mail, internet
direct messaging, web posting, and publication. Judge Scola granted
the Plaintiffs' motion, allowing service of the summons, complaint,
temporary restraining order, and all other filings in this matter
upon the Defendants identified in that Order via electronic mail
('e-mail'), website and social media postings. The Plaintiffs
successfully executed service of the Verified Class Action
Complaint on eight (8) Defendants via alternate service, including
Brass Marker s.r.o., Ester Holdings Inc., ePayments Systems Ltd.,
Peter Mohylnyi, Boonruk Ruamkit Co., Ltd., IT Outsourcing Co.,
Ltd., Nattpemol Krinara; and Papahratsorn Raviratporn.
Through preliminary discovery, the Plaintiffs claim to have
developed a greater understanding of the scheme underlying their
lawsuit and the notable players. Consequently, on Feb. 14, 2022,
the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which included
additional facts and the Defendants. In the Amended Complaint, the
Plaintiffs allege causes of action for Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act; fraud (including conspiracy to commit
fraud and aiding and abetting fraud); conversion (including
conspiracy to commit conversion and aiding and abetting
conversion); and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, including costs of suit,
interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees. The allegations and
arguments in the Plaintiffs' Motion are similar to those made in
its first motion for alternative service. The Plaintiffs contend
that the Defendants operate almost exclusively via the Internet and
use electronic means as reliable forms of contact with each other
and their investors.
According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants claim to be residents
of at least 13 different countries and have taken calculated steps
to avoid identification, including wiring funds through shell
companies, sending money through cryptocurrency exchanges, and
providing fake addresses on company documents. The Plaintiffs
further contend that the Defendants all have at least one form of
electronic contact, including email, company website contact forum,
or social media, providing a reliable means of communicating with
them.
Because of the difficulties associated with locating and serving
these Defendants, the Plaintiffs ask that the Court authorize
myriad forms of alternative service pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) and 4(h)(2).
Analysis
In their Motion, the Plaintiffs seek alternate service on
twenty-one new and/or unreachable Defendants ("Motion Defendants")
by: (1) email; (2) social media direct messaging (i.e., Facebook or
LinkedIn); (3) FedEx International Mail, return receipt requested;
or (4) publication. The Plaintiffs' Motion lists the country of
residence for each of the Motion Defendants, each of whom reside in
at least one of the following countries: (1) Ukraine; (2) Hong
Kong; (3) China; (4) United States; (5) Hungary; (6) United
Kingdom; (7) Canada; (8) Czech Republic; (9) Bulgaria; or (10)
South Korea/Republic of Korea. Because different considerations
apply based on the individual defendant's country of residence,
Judge Goodman will separate the analysis into the following
categories: (1) United States Defendants; (2) Foreign Defendants
Residing Outside Ukraine; and (3) Foreign Defendants Residing
Inside Ukraine.
1. United States Defendants
The Plaintiffs seek alternative service under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(f), which is entitled "Serving an Individual in a
Foreign Country." Immediately preceding this Rule is Rule 4(e),
which is entitled "Serving an Individual Within a Judicial District
of the United States." As the Plaintiffs concede, Defendants Mayon
Solutions, LLC, Jase Victor Davis, and Jared Goodyear ("United
States Defendants") all share the United States as their country of
residence.
The Plaintiffs propose myriad forms of alternative service: (1)
email; (2) social media direct messaging (i.e., Facebook or
LinkedIn); (3) FedEx International Mail, return receipt requested;
or (4) publication. In each of these situations, service would
occur in the location the individual received or viewed the
service.
According to the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, Mayon Solutions,
LLC is a New Hampshire limited liability company, Jase Victor Davis
is a citizen of Mississippi, and Jared Goodyear is a citizen of
South Carolina. The Plaintiffs provide no additional information in
the Motion indicating that any of the United States Defendants no
longer reside in the United States. Thus, Judge Goodman finds that
Rule 4(f) does not apply, and the Plaintiffs must comply with
either 4(e) (for individuals) or 4(h) (for corporations). Rule 4(e)
does not contain a subsection similar to Rule 4(f)(3)'s broad
conferral of judicial discretion to endorse alternative forms of
service.
Judge Goodman notes that Rule 4(e)(1) is the only subsection, which
could permit any of the forms of alternative service the Plaintiffs
propose. Thus, determining whether the Plaintiffs suggested forms
of alternative service are appropriate requires an examination of
the laws of Florida (where this Court is located) or the laws of
the State where service is effectuated.
However, the Plaintiffs have put forth no evidence or argument that
they have complied with either Florida, Mississippi or South
Carolina's rules permitting alternative service, nor have they put
forth any argument that any of these states even permit the
Plaintiffs' proposed methods of alternative service, Judge Goodman
opines, citing Phillips v. Hillcrest Med. Ctr., 244 F.3d 790, 800
n.10 (10th Cir. 2001).
Thus, Judge Goodman denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
request to serve Jase Victor Davis or Jared Goodyear via their
proposed forms of alternative service.
Because Mayon Solutions, LLC, is a corporation, it is governed by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h), which provides that a
domestic corporation in a judicial district of the United States
must be served by one of the following means: (A) in the manner
prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual; or (B) by
delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an
officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized
by appointment or by law to receive service of process and--if the
agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires--by
also mailing a copy of each to the defendant.
Rule 4(h)(1)(A) cross-references Rule 4(e)(1)'s allowance that
service may be made in accordance with State law. Again, the
Plaintiffs have failed to put forth any argument that they have
complied with either Florida or New Hampshire's laws allowing for
alternative service or that either state permits the Plaintiffs'
proposed methods of alternative service, Judge Goodman notes.
For the same reasons Judge Goodman relied upon to deny the
Plaintiffs' request as to Davis and Goodyear, Judge Goodman denies
without prejudice the Plaintiffs' request to serve Mayon Solutions,
LLC, via their proposed forms of alternative service.
2. Foreign Defendants Residing Outside Ukraine
The Plaintiffs also request the Court to approve alternative
service allowed on the following non-Ukraine based foreign
Defendants, residing in the following countries: The Investing
Online (Unknown); Mayon Holdings Ltd. (Hong Kong/China); Mayon
Solutions Ltd (United Kingdom); Olga Tielly (United Kingdom); Maria
Garda (Hungary); Olga Abrykosova (United Kingdom); Alla Skala
(Canada); Ivan Hrechaniuk (United Kingdom); Sergiy Prokopenko
(Czech Republic); Aware Choice Ltd (United Kingdom); Profit Media
Group LP (United Kingdom); Trans-Knsalt MR Ltd (Bulgaria); Art Sea
Group Ltd (South Korea/Republic of Korea) ("Foreign Defendants
Residing Outside Ukraine").
All of the foreign countries potentially at issue in this Motion
are signatories to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of
Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, Nov. 15,
1965, 20 U.S.T. 361 ("Hague Convention"). The Hague Convention does
not specifically preclude service of process via e-mail, social
media, return-receipt mail, or by posting on a designated website.
Although some of the Foreign Defendants Residing Outside Ukraine's
countries of residence have objected to the alternative means of
service provided in Article 10 of the Hague Convention, that
objection, by itself, does not preclude the methods of service the
Plaintiffs propose, Judge Goodman holds. Where a signatory nation
has objected to the alternative means of service provided by the
Hague Convention, that objection is expressly limited to those
means and does not represent an objection to other forms of
service, such as e-mail, social media messaging, or website
posting.
Furthermore, Canada, Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom do not
specifically object to Article 10(a), which authorizes the
transmission of judicial documents by "postal channels," Judge
Goodman notes. Service by FedEx (or other commercial mail couriers)
with respect to those Foreign Defendants Residing Outside Ukraine,
that reside in these three countries, is thus permissible under the
Hague Convention. Additionally, e-mail, social media messaging,
return-receipt mail, and designated website posting are reasonably
calculated to give notice to the Foreign Defendants Residing
Outside Ukraine.
In this case, the Plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence to
indicate that these forms of alternative service are "reasonably
calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested
parties of the pendency of the action," Judge Goodman opines,
citing Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314
(1950).
Accordingly, the Court authorizes alternate service of process on
the Foreign Defendants Residing Outside Ukraine via email, social
media messages, and publication on the Plaintiffs' website.
Additionally, the Canada, Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom
Defendants may also be served via FedEx delivery.
3. Foreign Defendants Residing Inside Ukraine
The remainder of foreign defendants for whom the Plaintiffs seek to
serve via alternative service reside in Ukraine: Borys Konovalenko;
Alex Doe; Vsevolod Tovstun; Daria Eckert; and Nataliya Los
("Foreign Defendants Residing Inside Ukraine"). Ukraine, like the
foreign countries discussed in this Order, is also a member of the
Hague Convention. Indeed, many of the legal principles discussed
earlier in this Order apply equally to Ukrainian residents.
However, Judge Goodman notes, unlike the other countries at issue,
Ukraine has been in a state of war since Russia's unprovoked
invasion on Feb. 24, 2022. Russia's invasion has levied a heavy
toll on Ukraine and its people. Internet outages in Ukraine have
been increasing and British intelligence warned that Russia is
probably targeting Ukraine's communications infrastructure in order
to reduce Ukrainian Citizens' access to reliable news and
information. Fear of power outages affecting hospitals, shelters,
and water treatment plants has driven supporting countries to send
generators to ease the strains on Ukraine's under-siege power grid.
Entire cities are struggling for food, water, and medicine.
With the people of Ukraine's food, water, power, internet, homes,
and lives under constant, vicious bombings, gunfire, and assault,
Judge Goodman has no confidence that any of the alternative means
of service proposed by the Plaintiffs are currently reasonably
calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise the Foreign
Defendants Residing in Ukraine of the pendency of the action. Judge
Goodman cannot imagine that an individual surrounded by the harsh
realities of modern warfare will be spending their time checking
their Facebook page, LinkedIn messages, or following the
instructions of an email directing them to a publication website.
The Plaintiffs, of course, are permitted to file another motion
containing additional facts and argument that any or all of the
Foreign Defendants Residing in Ukraine are either still active in
these alternative channels (i.e., regularly posting on Facebook or
responding to direct messages) or are otherwise unimpacted by the
war, Judge Goodman states. At this time, however, the Plaintiffs'
request to serve the Foreign Defendants Residing in Ukraine via
alternate service is denied without prejudice.
Conclusion
The Plaintiffs have shown good cause why leave should be granted to
allow service of the summonses, the Complaint, and all the filings
and discovery in this matter on the Foreign Defendants Residing
Outside Ukraine via (i) email; (ii) social media direct messaging
(i.e., Facebook or LinkedIn); (iii) FedEx International Mail,
return receipt requested; or (iv) publication on a designated
website. For these reasons it is ordered and adjudged that the
Plaintiffs' Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The Plaintiffs may serve electronic copies of the Summons and
Complaint via:
1. email as to all Foreign Defendants Residing Outside
Ukraine;
2. social media direct messaging as to all Foreign Defendants
Residing Outside Ukraine;
3. FedEx International Mail, return receipt requested, as to
Foreign Defendants Residing Outside Ukraine that reside in
Canada, Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom; and
4. publication on the Plaintiffs' designated website as to all
Foreign Defendants Residing Outside Ukraine.
Once completed, the Plaintiffs will file a copy of delivery
confirmation (or substantially equivalent document) as proof that
service has been carried out upon the Foreign Defendants Residing
Outside Ukraine as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
(1)(2)(B). The Plaintiffs' Motion is denied in all other respects.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated March 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p85mwks from Leagle.com.
ALIDORO II LLC: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alidoro II, LLC. The
case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Alidoro II, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02032 (E.D.N.Y., April 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Alidoro -- https://www.alidoronyc.com/ -- offers New York City's
best Italian sandwiches.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
ALLIED POWER: Faces Wagner Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD WAGNER, individually and for others similarly situated, v.
ALLIED POWER SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01772 (N.D. Ill.,
April 6, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime
wages and other damages owed to Plaintiff and others similarly
situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that he was paid the same hourly rate for all
hours worked (including those hours in excess of 40 hours in a
single workweek) with no overtime compensation throughout his
employment with Allied.
Mr. Wagner was employed by Allied from November 2018 to May 2020 as
a Project Lead. He would review materials being purchased, review
construction of work packages and ensure other construction workers
were following known safety and construction standards.
Allied provides staffing services for the power industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
lrschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
ALPINE FURNITURE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpine Furniture,
Inc. The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of herself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Alpine Furniture, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02899 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Alpine Furniture Inc. -- https://alpinefurniture.net/ -- is a
leading wholesale distributors of dining, bedroom, and living room
furniture.[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
ALTAMAREA INTELLECTUAL: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Altamarea
Intellectual Property, LLC. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Altamarea
Intellectual Property, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02013-WFK-JRC
(E.D.N.Y., April 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Altamarea -- https://www.altamareagroup.com/ -- delivers the
highest levels of quality and consistency in food and service
across distinct brands and concepts supported by our excellent team
dedicated fully to the client experience.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
AMBORELLA ORGANICS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amborella Organics
LLC. The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of herself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Amborella Organics LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02901 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Amborella Organics -- https://amborellaorganics.com/ -- created the
world's first and only seed-bearing lollipop.[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
AMERICA'S FOOD BASKET: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against America's Food
Basket, Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. America's Food Basket,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02022 (E.D.N.Y., April 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
America's Food Basket Inc. -- https://www.afbasket.com/ -- is a
supermarket co-op serving independent owners.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
AMERICAN HONDA: Preston Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to N.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL PRESTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00038, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 6, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-01777 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged warranty breaches and
violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act by selling defective
vehicles.
American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is an automobile company
headquartered in Torrance, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry P. Smith, Esq.
SMITHMARCO, P.C.
55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1200
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 324-3532
Facsimile: (888) 418-1277
E-mail: lsmith@smithmarco.com
- and –
Stacy M. Bardo, Esq.
BARDO LAW, P.C.
22 West Washington Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 219-6980
Facsimile: (312) 219-6981
E-mail: stacy@bardolawpc.com
AMERICAN STANDARD: Bell Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Standard
Insurance Company of Ohio. The case is styled as Monte Bell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
American Standard Insurance Company of Ohio, Case No.
1:22-cv-01360-CAP (N.D. Ga., April 7, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
American Standard Insurance Company of Ohio operates as an
insurance company. The Company offers property and casualty
insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 N.E. 1st Ave, Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
AMERICAN TUNA: Judge Moves Tuna Suit From New York to California
----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien at Legal Newsline reports that a proposed class action
lawsuit over where tuna is caught is moving across the country.
On April 1, U.S. Magistrate Judge Katharine Parker transferred the
case against American Tuna from New York federal court to San Diego
federal court without ruling on a motion for partial dismissal.
Plaintiff Jeffrey Craig's lawyers have agreed to withdraw the
unjust enrichment claim and a claim under the Magnusson-Moss Act.
"Not only does San Diego have far greater connections to the key
facts and witnesses than New York, but transfer of this case to San
Diego will reduce travel costs for some witnesses and be more
convenient for more of them than if this case remained in New
York," Parker wrote.
Lawyer Robert Kraselnik of Larchmont, N.Y., filed the case on Nov.
4 on behalf of Craig, of New Jersey. The suit claims Craig relied
on statements like "Caught and Canned in the USA" and "100%
American Made" when purchasing American Tuna products.
The suit claims much of the company's tuna is not caught in America
and is canned in Thailand and Costa Rica.
The company's headquarters are in San Diego and has no offices or
personnel in New York, so it moved to transfer the case there.
Parker wrote the tuna is caught in the Pacific Ocean by around 70
ships based out of California, Oregon and Washington.
The tuna is canned in Washington and Oregon, she wrote, despite the
complaint saying otherwise.
"American Tuna does not maintain records of where specifically in
the Pacific Ocean the tuna is caught. Rather, the fishermen who
catch the tuna each maintain records as to the locations where the
tuna was caught, the size and nature of the fishery where they fish
in the Pacific Ocean, the pole and line method of catching the
fish, and the chain of custody of tuna landed on their vessels to
the canneries," Parker wrote.
"American Tuna states that it expects to call fishermen and a
representative from the American Albacore Fishing Association as
witnesses regarding where the fish is caught and rules concerning
the recordkeeping regarding the same.
"These witnesses are located in San Diego or on the West Coast.
American Tuna also states it would call witnesses from its packers
who are located on the West Coast. These witnesses would have
information about the origin, tracing procedures, canning and
auditing of tuna canned at their facilities."
California has the most locations for Whole Foods, the company's
primary retailer. [GN]
AMTROL INC: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Cordero Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cordero v. Amtrol, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00431 (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge John J.
Mcconnell, Jr. entered a pretrial scheduling order as follows:
-- Factual Discovery to be completed by: July 15, 2022
-- Plaintiff's Phase I Expert Aug. 19, 2022
Disclosures shall be made by:
-- The Defendant's Phase I Expert Sept. 16, 2022
Disclosures shall be made by:
-- The Phase I Expert Discovery to Oct. 14, 2022
be completed by:
-- The Plaintiff's Motion for Nov. 18, 2022
Class Certification is due:
The nature of suit states Job Discrimination (Employment).
Amtrol designs, manufactures, and markets industrial machinery and
equipment. The Company offers well tanks, thermal and hydronic
expansion tanks.[CC]
ANALOG DEVICES: Bouvy's Class Certification Bid Tossed as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL BOUVY v. ANALOG
DEVICES, INC., a Massachusetts company, as successor to LINEAR
TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION; LINEAR TECHNOLOGY LLC, a Delaware company;
LINEAR TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE; and DOE DEFENDANTS
1-20, Case No. 3:19-cv-00881-DMS-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Dana M. Sabraw entered an order denying as moot the Plaintiff's
motion to certify class in light of the pending settlement and the
Court's certification of a Settlement Class as part of its Order
Certifying Settlement Class, Preliminarily Approving Settlement
Agreement, & Approving Class Notice.
Analog Devices is an American multinational semiconductor company
specializing in data conversion, signal processing and power
management technology, headquartered in Wilmington, Massachusetts.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xhHzhD at no extra charge.[CC]
ANCIENT BRANDS: Caro-Greene Sues Over Mislabeled Grain Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADINAH CARO-GREENE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANCIENT BRANDS, LLC, Defendant,
Case 3:22-cv-02222 (N.D. Cal., April 8, 2022) is an action against
the Defendant's mislabeling of its Ancient Nutrition Grass-Fed
Collagen Powder and Ancient Nutrition Keto Protein Powder.
According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures and sells an
extremely popular line of protein powder products throughout the
US. To increase profits at the expense of consumers and fair
competition, the Defendant deceptively sells its protein powder
products in oversized packaging that does not reasonably inform
consumers that they are more than half empty. The Defendant's slack
fill scam extends to all flavors, sizes, and varieties of Ancient
Nutrition powders sold in opaque containers.
The Plaintiff understood the size of the container and product
label to indicate that the amount of protein powder contained
therein was commensurate with the size of the container, and she
would not have purchased the Product, or would not have paid a
price premium for the Product, had she known that the size of the
container and product label were false and misleading. If the
Product's packaging and label were not misleading, then Plaintiff
would purchase the Product in the future.
ANCIENT BRANDS, LLC markets and sells natural and organic Puffed
Grains and Ingredients. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Zach Chrzan, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
zchrzan@clarksonlawfirm.com
APPFOLIO INC: Shipman Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jasmin Shipman, individually and as a
representative of the class v. AppFolio, Inc., Case No.
16-2022-CA-001273 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Fourth
Judicial Circuit In and For Duval County, Florida to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Jacksonville Division on March 29, 2022, and assigned Case No.
3:22-cv-00365-BJD-LLL.
The Plaintiff's Complaint purports to allege a single claim for
relief against the Defendant under the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act. The Plaintiff specifically alleges that Defendant's
alleged conduct harmed her and putative class members.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kimberly A. Carabotta, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
1075 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 2500
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 885-1500
Fax: (404) 892-7056
Email: kcarabotta@seyfarth.com
APPLE INC: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Ramos Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
RAVEN RAMOS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
7:22-cv-02761 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for its failure to timely pay wages in violation of
the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately
October 2010 to January 2018 at an Apple Store located at 767 5th
Ave., New York, New York.
Apple Inc. is a technology company, with a principal place of
business in Cupertino, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
APTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL: Nieman Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Nieman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Aptive Environmental LLC, Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV10880, was removed from the
Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on April 8, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02365 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Aptive Environmental -- https://www.goaptive.com/ -- provides
effective pest solutions to protect your home from pests.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Chet A Kronenberg, Esq.
SIMPSON THACHER AND BARTLETT LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars 29th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 407-7500
Fax: (310) 407-7502
Email: ckronenberg@stblaw.com
ARCIMOTO INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit vs CEO Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
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 Eastern District of New York captioned "Liu v. Frohnmayer et
al.," Case No. 21-cv-03702 filed on June 30, 2021.
Said actions 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.
BACKSTREETS GRILL: Conditional Collective Certification Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIA WOLFF and AARON
DEVILLANUEVA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. BACKSTREETS GRILL SC, LLC d/b/a BACKSTREETS GRILL; and
CASEY PEISSEL, individually, Case No. 3:21-cv-02800-MGL (D.S.C.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. granting Conditional Collective Action Certification,
pursuant to section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
29 U.S.C section 216; and
2. sending notices to the putative class members.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 24,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LXlY1Z
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A.
147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
Charleston, SC 29412
Telephone: (843).579-7373
Facsimile: (843) 614-6417
E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com
bgermain@brucemillerlaw.com
BANCO SANTANDER: 5 Mexican Gov't Bonds Antitrust Suits Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
Case Nos. 18-CV-2830, 18-CV-3985, 18-CV-4294, 18-CV-4400,
18-CV-4402, 18-CV-4673 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York consolidated
the following cases under case number 18-CV-2830:
a. Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth. Pension
Plan, et al. v. Banco Santander S.A., et al.,
No. 18-CV-3985;
b. Boston Retirement Sys. v. Banco Santander S.A., et al.,
No. 18-CV-4294;
c. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth. v. Banco Santander S.A., et al.,
No. 18-CV-4400;
d. United Food and Com. Workers Union and Participating Food
Indus. Emps. Tri-State Pension Fund v. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya
Argentaria S.A., No. 18-CV-4402; and
e. Gov't Emps.' Ret. Sys. of the Virgin Islands v. Banco
Santander S.A., No. 18-CV-4673.
On March 30, 2018, Plaintiffs Oklahoma Firefighters Pension &
Retirement System and Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103,
I.B.E.W. filed a class action complaint against Banco Santander
S.A.; Santander Investment Securities, Inc.; Santander Holdings
USA, Inc.; Banco Santander (Mexico) S.A.; Institución de Banca
Múltiple; Grupo Financiero Santander Mexico; Santander Investment
Bolsa; Sociedad de Valores, S.A.U.; Banco Bilbao Vizcaya
Argentaria, S.A.; BBVA Securities, Inc.; BBVA Compass Bancshares,
Inc.; BBVA Bancomer S.A.; Institucion de Banca Multiple; Groupo
Financiero BBVA Bancomer, S.A. de C.V.; JPMorgan Chase & Co.;
JPMorgan Chase Bank; National Association; JP Morgan Securities
LLC; J.P. Morgan Broker-Dealer Holdings Inc.; Banco J.P. Morgan,
S.A. Institución de Banca Múltiple; J.P. Morgan Grupo Financiero;
HSBC Holdings PLC; HSBC Bank PLC; HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.; HSBC
Markets (USA) Inc.; HSBC Mexico, S.A.; Institucion de Banca
Múltiple; Grupo Financiero HSBC; HSBC North America Holdings Inc.;
HSBC Latin America Holdings (UK Limited); Barclays PLC; Barclays
Capital PLC; Barclays Capital Inc.; Barclays Bank PLC; Grupo
Financiero Barclays Mexico, S.A. de C.V.; Barclays Bank Mexico,
S.A.; Citigroup Inc; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Citigroup
Financial Products Inc; Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc;
Banco Nacional de Mexico, S.A.; Institucion de Banca Multiple;
Grupo Financiero Banamex; Bank of America N.A.; Bank of America
Corporation; BankAmerica International Financial Corporation; Bank
of America Mexico, S.A.; Institución de Banca Múltiple; Grupo
Financiero Bank of America; Merrill Lynch; Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated; Deutsche Bank AG; Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.;
Deutsche Bank Americas Holding Corp; Deutsche Bank Mexico, S.A.;
Institución de Banca Múltiple; and John Does 1-10.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants are the "exclusive
Mexican government-approved market makers" for Mexican government
bonds. It asserts an antitrust claim under Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1. Since then, other Plaintiffs have filed
similar suits in the Court.
To date, the following five actions have been assigned or
reassigned to Judge Oetken: Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit
Operating Auth. Pension Plan, et al. v. Banco Santander S.A., et
al., No. 18-CV-3985; Boston Retirement Sys. v. Banco Santander
S.A., et al., No. 18-CV-4294; Se. Pa. Transp. Auth. v. Banco
Santander S.A., et al., No. 18-CV-4400; United Food and Com.
Workers Union and Participating Food Indus. Emps. Tri-State Pension
Fund v. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A., No. 18-CV-4402; and
Gov't Emps.' Ret. Sys. of the Virgin Islands v. Banco Santander
S.A., No. 18-CV-4673.
Judge Oetken ordered these cases consolidated under case number
18-CV-2830. All filings in the member cases will be in the lead
case. Despite such consolidation, the consolidated cases "retain
their separate identities." For administrative purposes, the Clerk
of Court is directed to close the other five actions listed. The
Order does not affect the rights of the parties in any of the
consolidated cases.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2d4d4ntj from Leagle.com.
BANK OF AMERICA: Bruin Sues Over Misrepresentation of Transfer Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TAMI BRUIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-00140-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C., April 4, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of North Carolina Consumer
Protection Law and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive practice of
misleading accountholders into paying automated clearinghouse (ACH)
transfer fees. The Defendant exploits its informational advantage
to misrepresent and obscure the truth about the National Automated
Clearinghouse (NACHA) payment processing system to deceive its
accountholders into paying $3 or $10 ACH transfer fees. In reality,
any transfer over the NACHA system can always be made for free.
Bank of America, NA is national bank with its headquarters and
principal place of business located in Charlotte, North Carolina.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
11 North Market Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone: (828) 258-2991
E-mail: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
- and –
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
Christopher Gold, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (786) 289-9471
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
chris@edelsberglaw.com
- and –
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 N.E. 1st Ave. St. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and –
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia Gold, Esq.
KALIEL PLLC
1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielpllc.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Ahuja Suit Over Alleged EFTA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
AVANTIKA AHUJA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; and EARLY WARNING
SERVICES, LLC d/b/a ZELLEPAY.COM, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-02313 (C.D. Cal., April 6, 2022) alleges Defendants'
violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.
The Plaintiff is a victim of a scam targeting individual customers
of the Defendant in connection with the Zelle mobile application,
resulting in $3,500 being debited from the Plaintiff's account with
the Defendant without the Plaintiff's authorization.
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION operates as a bank. The Bank
offers saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans. Bank
of America serves clients worldwide.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
- and -
Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
3000 Atrium Way, Suite 200
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08057
Telephone: (732) 588-8688
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
Email: ross@kazlg.com
BANK OF GUAM: Bonifacio Files Suit in D. Guam
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of Guam. The
case is styled as Eusebio B. Bonifacio, Jr., individually and on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bank of
Guam, Case No. 1:22-cv-00008 (D. Guam, April 8, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Banks and Banking for Breach of
Contract.
Bank of Guam -- https://bankofguam.com/ -- "The People's Bank" is a
community-centric financial institution with a network of 22
branches and more than 80 ATMs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua D. Walsh, Esq.
RAZZANO WALSH & TORRES, P.C.
139 Murray Blvd., Suite 100
Hagatna, GU 96910
Phone: (671) 989-3009
Email: jdwalsh@rwtguam.com
BARIATRICPAL LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bariatricpal LLC. The
case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Bariatricpal LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02908 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bariatricpal -- https://store.bariatricpal.com/ -- offers low
prices & highest quality Bariatric Vitamins, food and Protein bars,
shakes, powders, weight loss surgery products & WLS Pre-op &
Post-op diet foods.[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
BDO USA LLP: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Gaines Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK L. GAINES; JESSICA J. KELLY; and ANTHONY TSE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BDO
USA, LLP; the BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BDO USA, LLP; the RETIREMENT
PLAN COMMITTEE; and JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case: 1:22-cv-01878
(N.D. Ill., April 11, 2022) alleges violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that during the putative
Class Period, the Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan,
breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and
to the other participants of the Plan by failing to adequately
monitor and control the Plan's recordkeeping costs.
The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duty of prudence. Their actions were contrary to actions
of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants
millions of dollars, says the suit.
BDO USA, LLP offers professional services. The Company provides
accounting, assurance, financial advisory, taxation, and consulting
services to public and private companies. BDO USA operates
worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
Email: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
medelson@edelson-law.com
-and-
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
Email: markg@capozziadler.com
BEAM ORGANICS: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beam Organics, Inc.
The case is styled as Lynnette Tatum-Rios, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Beam Organics,
Inc. doing business as: Beam, Case No. 1:22-cv-02921 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Beam Organics -- https://beamorganics.com/ -- is a wellness brand
offering an innovative line of CBD products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
BIG WALL DECOR: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Wall Dcor, LLC.
The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Big Wall Dcor, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02936 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Big Wall Décor -- https://bigwalldecor.com/ -- is the largest
online store for oversized wall art.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Faces Securities Suit in Ontario Court
----------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited 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 putative
Ontario class action filed in July 23, 2014. A motion for
certification and leave to pursue statutory misrepresentation
claims was filed.
On November 16, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued
an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a
statutory claim for misrepresentation. On December 2, 2015, the
company filed a notice of motion seeking leave to appeal this
ruling. On January 22, 2016, the court postponed the hearing on the
plaintiffs' certification motion to an undetermined date after
asking the company to file a motion to dismiss the claims of the
U.S. plaintiffs for forum non conveniens. Before that motion was
heard, the parties agreed to limit the class to purchasers who
reside in Canada or purchased on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
On November 15, 2018, the court denied the company's motion for
leave to appeal the order granting the plaintiffs leave to file a
statutory claim for misrepresentation. On February 5, 2019, the
court entered an order certifying a class comprised persons (a) who
purchased BlackBerry common shares between March 28, 2013, and
September 20, 2013, and still held at least some of those shares as
of September 20, 2013, and (b) who acquired those shares on a
Canadian stock exchange or acquired those shares on any other stock
exchange and were a resident of Canada when the shares were
acquired. Notice of class certification was published on March 6,
2019. The company filed its Statement of Defence on April 1, 2019,
and discovery is proceeding.
BlackBerry provides intelligent security software and services to
enterprises and governments around the world.
BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Illegal Termination Suit Ongoing in Ontario
----------------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited 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 putative
employment class action filed against the company in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in February 15, 2017.
The Statement of Claim alleges that actions the company took when
certain of its employees decided to accept offers of employment
from Ford Motor Company of Canada amounted to a wrongful
termination of the employees' employment with the Company. The
claim seeks an unspecified quantum of statutory, contractual, or
common law termination entitlements, punitive or breach of duty of
good faith damages of CAD$20,000,000, or such other amount as the
Court finds appropriate, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as the court deems
just.
The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class
action on May 27, 2019. The company commenced a motion for leave to
appeal the certification order on June 11, 2019. The Court denied
the motion for leave to appeal on September 17, 2019. The company
filed its Statement of Defense on December 19, 2019, and discovery
is proceeding.
BlackBerry provides intelligent security software and services to
enterprises and governments around the world.
BLACKBERRY LTD: To Pay $165M to Settle Lawsuit Over BlackBerry 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry said it had agreed to pay $165 million to settle a more
than eight-year-old class action lawsuit brought against it for
allegedly defrauding shareholders by exaggerating BlackBerry 10
smartphone's success and profitability.
Under the agreement, which requires a judge's approval, the payment
will be made to settle claims brought on behalf of those who bought
the company's shares between March 28, 2013 and Sept. 20, 2013.
Reuters reported that the company was planning to settle the
lawsuit to avoid trial in the United States.
U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan federal court
granted a request from the company's lawyers and shareholders to
adjourn their planned trial to negotiate a preliminary settlement.
Shareholders accused the company of concealing BlackBerry 10's true
sales prospects in public statements during 2013, resulting in an
inflated share price.
Lawsuits accusing companies of misleading shareholders are common
in the United States, but few go to trial.
While the BlackBerry 10 won positive reviews from critics, it never
caught on with the public, which preferred Android-based
smartphones and Apple Inc.'s iPhones, which led to BlackBerry's
decision to stop making phones in 2016.
The Canadian company now has shifted focus to cybersecurity and
making embedded operating systems widely used in cars. [GN]
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Potthoff Sues Over Denied Goof Proof Coverage Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT POTTHOFF, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01722 (N.D. Ill., April 4, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation, breach of
contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, violations of Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and State Consumer Fraud
Acts, and breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of
merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose and Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged denial of an insurance
claim under its Goof Proof service contract for operational or
structural failure due to a defect in materials or workmanship, or
normal wear and tear. The Plaintiff submitted a claim under the
Goof Proof coverage after the couch-reclining chair combo that he
purchased was damaged but the Defendant denied the claim on the
basis that the damage caused was due to the normal or intended use
of the reclining chair. The value of the product that the Plaintiff
purchased was materially less than its value as represented by the
Defendant. Had the Plaintiff known the truth, he would not have
bought the product or would have paid less for it, says the suit.
Bob's Discount Furniture, LLC is an American furniture store chain
headquartered in Manchester, Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
BODY RESTORE: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Body Restore, Inc.
The case is styled as Lynnette Tatum-Rios, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Body Restore,
Inc. doing business as: Body Restore, Case No. 1:22-cv-02927
(S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Body Restore, Inc. -- https://www.bodyrestore.co/ -- is home spa
relaxation made easy.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
BOOT BARN INC: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boot Barn, Inc. The
case is styled as Christopher Loadholt, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Boot Barn, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02876 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Boot Barn -- https://www.bootbarn.com/ -- offers the latest styles
in cowboy boots & hats, western wear, work boots and much
more.[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
BOUNTIFUL BERRY: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bountiful Berry, Inc.
The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Bountiful Berry, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02906 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bountiful Berry, Inc. doing business as Grandy Organics --
https://www.grandyorganics.com/ -- formerly known as GrandyOats has
been the premier manufacturer of organic granola, trail mixes, nuts
and cereals in Maine.[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
BURGER KING: Coleman Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Coleman, Marco DiLeonardo, Matthew Fox, and Madelyn Salzman
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Burger
King Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-20925-RKA (S.D. Fla., March 28,
2022), is brought against the Defendants on behalf of individuals
who purchased a Burger King menu item based on false and misleading
advertising concerning the size and/or the amount of ingredients
contained in said menu item.
This is a class action against Burger King for unfair and deceptive
trade practices concerning the sale of certain falsely advertised
menu items. Burger King advertises its burgers as large burgers
compared to competitors and containing oversized meat patties and
ingredients that overflow over the bun to make it appear that the
burgers are approximately 35% larger in size, and contain more than
double the meat, than the actual burger. Although the size of the
Whopper increased materially in Burger King's advertisements, the
recipe or the amount of beef or ingredients contained in Burger
King's Whopper has never changed. Burger King's advertisements for
its burger and menu items are unfair and financially damaging
consumers as they are receiving food that is much lower in value
than what was promised.
Burger King's actions are especially concerning now that inflation,
food, and meat prices are very high and many consumers, especially
lower income consumers, are struggling financially. Burger King's
promise to consumers of a large portion of food with their purchase
are also causing consumers to come to, or order from, Burger King
and make purchases that they would not have otherwise made. Burger
King is also unfairly competing with burger chains that more fairly
advertise the size of their burger and menu items. Burger King
promises large portions of food to steer consumers to Burger King
for their meals and away from competitors that more fairly
advertise the size of their burgers and menu items, unfairly
diverting millions of dollars in sales that would have gone to
competitors.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated, seek to end Burger King's unfair and materially
misleading advertising and request the following: monetary damages
fully compensating all individuals who were deceived by Defendant
as a result of purchasing Defendant's Overstated Menu Items;
injunctive relief requiring Defendant to provide corrected
advertising and/or to discontinue the Overstated Menu Items; and
such other relief as the Court deems necessary and appropriate,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased burgers at respective a Burger King
stores.
Burger King is a Florida corporation with its headquarters and
principal place of business located in Miami, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anthony J. Russo, Jr., P.A., Esq.
D/B/A THE RUSSO FIRM
301 West Atlantic Avenue, Suite 0-2
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Phone: 844-847-8300
Email: anthony@therussofirm.com
- and -
James C. Kelly, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES C. KELLY
244 5th Avenue, Suite K-278
New York, NY 10001
Phone: 212-920-5042
Email: jkelly@jckellylaw.com
BURT'S BEES: Bruno Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PERRY BRUNO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BURT'S BEES, INC., Case No.
22STCV07599, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on April 6, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-02306 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California's Unfair Competition Law and the False Advertising Law
by making false and misleading claims that its lip balms,
lipsticks, and other cosmetic products are 100 percent natural even
though they allegedly contain synthetic ingredients.
Burt's Bees, Inc. is an American personal care product company
based in Durham, North Carolina. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kate T. Spelman, Esq.
Alexander M. Smith, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
515 Flower Street Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-5100
Facsimile: (213) 239-5199
E-mail: kspelman@jenner.com
asmith@jenner.com
- and –
Dean N. Panos, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
353 North Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 222-9350
Facsimile: (312) 527-0484
E-mail: dpanos@jenner.com
BUYK CORP: Faces Carse Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
LORENZO CARSE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BUYK CORP. and PHIL "DOE", Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01881-ENV-JRC (E.D.N.Y., April 5, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law including failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notices, failure to
furnish wage statements, and unlawful wage deductions.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a bike courier,
cleaner, packer, stocker and promoter at 8904 5th Ave., Brooklyn,
New York from August 2021 until March 2022.
Buyk Corp. is a courier service company located at 8904 5th Ave.,
Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
c
-
XpresSpa Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 31, 2022, that a class action
preliminary approval of the settlement is pending.
The case captioned "Kyle Collins v. Spa Products Import &
Distribution Co., LLC et al" is a combined class action and
California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action. Plaintiff
seeks to recover wages, penalties and PAGA penalties for claims for
(1) failure to provide meal periods, (2) failure to provide rest
breaks, (3) failure to pay overtime, (4) inaccurate wage
statements, (5) waiting time penalties, and (6) PAGA penalties of
$100 per employee per pay period per violation.
There are approximately 240 current and former employees in the
litigation class. The parties agreed to mediation on May 26, 2020,
however, due to COVID-19 the parties subsequently stayed all
proceedings. The mediation session occurred on March 18, 2021 and
the matter was settled. A revised motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement was filed with the Court in February 2022 and
this motion is pending.
XpresSpa Group, Inc. is a travel health and wellness services
holding company based in New York.
C.I. LOBSTER: Pagan Seeks Conditional Cert. of Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH PAGAN v. C.I.
LOBSTER CORP., JOSEPH MANDARINO, RICHARD MANDARINO, and JOHN
MANDARINO, Case No. 1:20-cv-07349-ALC-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a
collective action and approving and authorizing distribution of a
notice of collective action lawsuit to putative party plaintiffs
and related relief.
The parties have agreed that Defendants have until April 11, 2022
to oppose the instant motion and Plaintiff has until April 18, 2022
to reply.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 23,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uuE8Cd
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Finn Dusenbery, Esq.
THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
79 Madison Ave
New York, NY 10016
CACIO E. PEPE LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Vargas Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NELSON VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CACIO E. PEPE, LLC d/b/a ALEXANDER GREEK
TAVERNA; and JEROME AXELROD, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-21063-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 8, 2022) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Vargas was employed by the Defendants as dishwasher.
CACIO E. PEPE, LLC d/b/a ALEXANDER GREEK TAVERNA is Italian
restaurant that serves a variety of authentic Italian dishes, from
fresh seafood to traditional pasta dishes. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aron Smukler, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
Email: asmukler@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
CASA DE FANELLI: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Casa de Fanelli LLC.
The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Casa de Fanelli LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02909 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
CASA DI FANELLI LLC is a limited liability company located in
Melrose, Florida.[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
CHANCE SOBRIETY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Denison Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW DENISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHANCE SOBRIETY MINISTRIES INC.; and POWER
STAFFING SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00325-JM
(E.D. Ark., April 7, 2022) is an action against the Defendants to
recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff Denison was employed by the Defendants as detailer.
CHANCE SOBRIETY MINISTRIES INC. is a non-profit drug and alcohol
treatment center that can provide both inpatient and outpatient
treatment to individuals who have a drinking problem and alcohol
dependence on drugs and alcohol. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris Burks, Esq.
WHLAW WE HELP
1 Riverfront Pl. Suite 745
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Telephone: (501) 891-6000
CHARTER FOODS: Judge Endorses Denial of Conditional Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOBY BURRIS, et al., v.
CHARTER FOODS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00158-CEA-CRW (E.D.
Tenn.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Cynthia Richardson Wyrick
recommends that Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective
action certification be denied.
The Court said, "The Defendants had written policies in place, of
which Plaintiffs were aware, that clearly stated employees should
not work off the clock and employees were to be paid overtime for
all hours over 40 worked in a single workweek. Of course, the
existence of appropriate written policies does not end the inquiry
because companies would be expected to have written pay policies
that comply with the law, which is especially true with companies
the size of Defendants in this matter. At the same time, the Court
cannot ignore the existence of these policies where the record does
not support a conclusion that there were widespread violations of
them and there is no
evidence that an alternate, Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA)-violating policy was utilized. To meet the threshold for
FLSA conditional certification, Plaintiffs bear the burden of
establishing that Defendants utilized an FLSA-violating policy.
Because the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the existence of
such a policy, they have necessarily failed to show that they and
members of the proposed collective are similarly situated."
On July 21, 2020, the Plaintiff Toby Burris filed a complaint on
behalf of himself and similarly situated current and former
employees of the Defendant Charter Foods and two of its associated
business entities, Charter Central, and Charter Foods. The
Complaint alleges collective violations of the FLSA,, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, (PMWA), and the Pennsylvania
Wage Payment and Collection Law (PWPCL).
The Defendants, as Yum! Brands franchisees, own over 300 fast food
restaurants and quick service industry restaurants, namely Taco
Bell, Long John Silver's, KFC, A&W, and Pizza Hut restaurants
across 12 states, including Pennsylvania. Defendants
employ approximately 7,000 workers, with 6,000 serving as Team
Members and/or Shift Leads.
The Complaint alleges that the Defendants engaged in business
practices that violated the rights of the Team Members and Shift
Leads, specifically contending that Defendants failed to pay Team
Members and Shift Leads appropriate overtime compensation for their
work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs further allege
that Defendants required Team Members and Shift Leads to work off
the clock before and/or after their scheduled shift to reach
production quotas established by Defendants.
The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendants as both a Team
Member and Shift Lead from 2018-2019, states that Team Members and
Shift Leads who are hired and compensated at an hourly rate of pay
are required to clock in and clock out at the beginning and end of
each shift and are "theoretically" not permitted to work off the
clock. The Complaint alleges that Team Members and Shift Leads are
generally scheduled to work 40 hours per week; however, they are
routinely required and/or permitted to work off the clock before
and/or after their scheduled shift.As a result, Plaintiffs claim
these workers exceed their scheduled eight-hour workday, which in
turn causes them to work more than 40 hours in a single workweek.
Further, the Complaint alleges that Team Members and Shift Leads
are never compensated for work performed in excess of their 8 hour
daily shift or 40 hour workweek and claims states that it is common
for Team Members and Shift Leads to be required to work more than
12 hours in a workday shift or 60 hours each workweek without
proper compensation. Additionally, the Plaintiffs contend that
Defendants did not accurately record all time worked by Team
Members and Shift Leads by either removing hours from payroll or
requiring employees to perform off the clock work in violation of
the FLSA, PMWA, and PWPCL.
The Plaintiffs state these violations which deprived the workers of
appropriate overtime compensation resulted from policies and
practices common across all of Defendants' businesses with respect
to Team Members and Shift Leads. The Plaintiffs further assert that
Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensation was due to
deliberate and willful violations of the FLSA, PMWA, and PWPCL.
Defendants deny all alleged violations of the FLSA, PMWA, and
PWPCL.
A copy of the Court's recommendation dated March 23, 2022 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uw2lbn at no
extra charge.[CC]
CHEETAH MOBILE: Wins Dismissal of Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Skadden obtained a dismissal of a putative consolidated securities
class action brought against Cheetah Mobile, Inc. The plaintiffs,
purported company shareholders, asserted that Cheetah made several
misstatements regarding compliance with Google Play store policies,
compliance with Chinese law and attempts to remediate its
relationship with Facebook. On March 30, 2022, Judge Michael W.
Fitzgerald of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California granted the company's motion to dismiss the action with
leave to amend. The court held that the plaintiffs had not
adequately alleged that the company's statements were false or
misleading and found Cheetah's stated risk analysis of the impact
of losing access to the Google Play app store to be accurate.[GN]
CHRIS CRAFT: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chris Craft
Corporation. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Chris Craft
Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-02043 (E.D.N.Y., April 10, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Chris-Craft Corporation -- https://www.chriscraft.com/ -- is an
American manufacturer of recreational powerboats that is based in
Sarasota, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Segal, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 415-0100
Email: msegal@segallegal.com
CLARENDON COUNTY, SC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beemer Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABBEY BEEMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLARENDON COUNTY, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-01145-DCN (D.S.C., April 8, 2022) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Beemer was employed by the Defendant as EMS worker.
CLARENDON COUNTY is a county located below the fall line in the
Coastal Plain region of U.S. state of South Carolina.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Janet Rhodes, Esq.
MIKE KELLY LAW GROUP
1523 Huger Street, Suite A
Columbia, SC 29202
Telephone: (803) 461-2160
Facsimile: (803) 252-7145
Email: jrhodes@mklawgroup.com
CLIO SNACKS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clio Snacks LLC. The
case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Clio Snacks LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02905 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
CLIO Snacks -- https://cliosnacks.com/ -- is a consumer goods
company that manufactures yogurt bars.[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
CLOUDFLARE INC: Xu Class Suit Seeks to Enjoin Stockholder Vote
--------------------------------------------------------------
CINDY XU, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated stockholders of CLOUDFLARE, INC., Plaintiff v. CLOUDFLARE,
INC.; MATTHEW PRINCE; MICHELLE ZATLYN; CARL LEDBETTER; SCOTT
SANDELL; MARIA EITEL; MARK ANDERSON; KATRIN SUDER; and STANLEY
MERESMAN, Defendants, Case No. 2022-0315 (Del. Ch., April 6, 2022)
alleges breach of fiduciary duties.
In December 2021, the Cloudflare Compensation Committee approved
the mega-grant Matthew Prince ("Prince") and Michelle Zatlyn
("Zatlyn," and together with Prince, "the Controllers") were
seeking (the "2021 Awards"). The 2021 Awards are patently unfair
and could be the mega-grant that finally causes a stockholder
revolt. However, the Defendants have taken several steps, in
violation of their fiduciary duties, to ensure stockholder approval
at the upcoming June 2, 2022 stockholder vote.
First, the Proxy omits numerous key facts. Most importantly, even
though the boards that approved prior "mega-grants" correctly
disclosed the expected "grant date fair value" of those grants, the
Cloudflare Board chose to withhold that critical data point,
despite admitting in the Proxy that it had calculated the grant
date fair value.
Second, the majority-of-the-minority vote (the "MOTM Vote") Vote
itself will be coerced. Besides the 2021 Awards—which cover the
Controllers' demand for ever more compensation in order to stay
"motivated"—the Board also approved a parallel compensation award
for certain non-founder executives and other key employees (the
"Non-Founder Awards"). Unlike the 2021 Awards, which potentially
bestow staggering sums on the Controllers without ensuring that the
Company will even enjoy the benefits of their continued services,
the Non-Founder Awards may rightfully be seen as necessary to
protect the Company from a mass employee exodus.
Third, the MOTM Vote is deficient as it allows certain interested
stockholders to vote for the 2021 Awards. Specifically, the MOTM
Vote does not exclude non-executive employees of Cloudflare, many
of whom own stock in the Company and stand to potentially profit
from the Non-Founder Awards if the 2021 Awards (and thus the
Non-Founder Awards) are approved by stockholders.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief until and unless the Proxy
makes full and fair disclosure, and the ensuing stockholder vote is
non-coerced.
CLOUDFLARE, INC. designs and develops software solutions. The
Company offers platform for load balancing, video streaming,
security, analysis, and domain registration. Cloudflare serves
customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mae Oberste, Esq.
Gregory Varallo, Esq.
Mae Oberste, Esq.
Daniel E. Meyer, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 364-3601
- and -
Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
- and -
Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
David Tejtel, Esq.
FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
Bedford Hills, NY 10507
Telephone: (888) 529-1108
- and -
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
Telephone: (484) 258-1585
CONFLUENCE HEALTH: Fired Employees File Suit Over Vaccine Mandate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ncwlife.com reports that eighty-four former employees of Confluence
Health who were fired for refusing to receive a COVID-19
vaccination have filed a class-action lawsuit against the
health-care provider in Douglas County Superior Court.
The suit, filed claims the former employees were not permitted to
prove to Confluence Health that they possessed natural immunity to
COVID-19 because of their working in close proximity to COVID
patients at Central Washington Hospital and that the various
COVID-19 vaccinations were neither safe nor effective.
The plaintiffs are asking that a jury award them their jobs back,
lost wages and unspecified damages.
The group is represented by East Wenatchee attorney Steve Lacy with
former Confluence employee Rebecca Lancaster serving as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Also a plaintiff in the suit is former Eastmont School Board member
Joy Dawe who stepped down from the board this month so she could
seek employment outside the area. Dawes was elected to the board
just last November.
The suit claims all the plaintiffs sought exemptions to the vaccine
mandate from Confluence Health or were told that seeking such an
accommodation "would be futile in terms of preserving their jobs."
The lawsuit says the employees were reasonable in refusing the
vaccine because the vaccines "were not safe, nor effective in
stopping the transmission of the virus."
Included in the lawsuit is a 15-page declaration from Dr. Peter
McCullough questioning the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19
vaccines.
McCullough has drawn criticism within the medical community for his
outspoken opposition to COVID-19 vaccines and his support of
alternative methods for treating the virus.
He says he was not paid for his declaration in the lawsuit.
Confluence has not yet responded to a request for comment on the
lawsuit. [GN]
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Perrong Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW PERRONG, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONSTELLATION
ENERGY CORPORATION and ALLIANCE SHAREHOLDER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00830-GLR (D. Md., April 6, 2022)
arises from Alliance's alleged conduct of sending pre-recorded
telemarketing calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone and those of
other putative class members for the purposes of advertising
Constellation Energy's goods and services, which is prohibited by
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff bring this action on behalf of proposed nationwide a
class of other persons who were sent the same illegal telemarketing
calls because the calls to Plaintiff were transmitted using
technology capable of generating thousands of similar calls per
day.
Defendant Alliance Shareholder Communications, LLC is a New Jersey
limited liability company.
Constellation Energy Corporation is a corporation headquartered in
Baltimore, Maryland.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John McGowan, Esq.
KINNER & MCGOWAN PLLC
413 East Capitol Street, SE First Floor
Washington, DC 20003
Telephone: (202) 846-7148
E-mail: jmcgowan@kinnermcgowan.com
- and -
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW P.C.
350 Lincoln Street Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (617) 485-0018
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Charleston
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Commissioners of Public
Works of the City of Charleston v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00042-RMG (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard
Mark Gergel entered an amended scheduling order as follows:
1. Motions to join other parties and Sept. 3, 2022
amend the pleadings shall be filed
no later than:
2. Counsel shall file and serve Nov. 12, 2022
affidavits of records custodian
witnesses proposed to be presented
by affidavit at trial no later than:
3. Discovery shall be completed no later Dec. 1, 2022
than:
4. Identification and Report by Jan. 3, 2023
Plaintiff on or before:
5. Expert discovery, including Feb. 15, 2023
deposition(s) of Plaintiff's
expert(s), on or before:
6. Expert discovery, including March 15, 2023
deposition of Defendants'
experts, on or before:
7. The Plaintiff shall serve and Jan. 23, 2023.
file any class certification
motion no later than:
8. The Defendants shall serve March 9, 2023
and file any responsive
memorandum on or before:
9. The Plaintiff shall serve March 25, 2023.
and file any reply
on or before:
Costco Wholesale is an American multinational corporation which
operates a chain of membership-only big-box retail stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jvjvzy at no extra charge.[CC]
CREDIT ASSOCIATES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Hopper FCRA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TARA S. HOPPER, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT ASSOCIATES, LLC, and TRANS
UNION, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-522 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Edmund
A. Sargus, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied Defendant Credit
Associates' motion to dismiss the putative class action suit filed
against it.
I. Background
Plaintiff Hopper alleges that Credit Associates and Trans Union
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section
1681, et seq. because they "illegally provided, obtained and/or
misused consumer reports to market debt settlement services through
direct-mail solicitations aimed at Ohio citizens." Ms. Hopper avers
that "Credit Associates seeks pre-screened lists by identifying
potential Ohioans based on certain factors bearing on
creditworthiness, including (a) debt balances, (b) information
about creditors and debt (also known as "credit tradeline"), (c)
high interest rate debt, and/or (d) unsecured debt, among other
factors."
The Plaintiff alleges that Credit Associates requests the lists of
Ohioans who fit the designated factors, and thereafter Trans Union
supplies such pre-screened lists. She further alleges that Credit
Associates then uses these lists to direct-mail markets its debt
relief services to Ohioans, which is not permitted under the FCRA.
She avers that while the FCRA does permit a firm offer of credit,
these solicitations did not comply with the requirements of
committing to the credit before extending the offer.
Ms. Hopper was on one of these pre-screened lists. In late January
of 2019, she received a letter from Defendant Credit Associates
indicating that she was "PRE-APPROVED" and that "Records indicate
you may have excessive credit card debt. Due to an important ruling
to protect consumers in credit card debt, you are pre-approved for
a debt relief program that can save you thousands of dollars with
no upfront cost to you."
The letter listed the dollar amount of Ms. Hopper's estimated
credit card debt, a projected settlement amount, and the estimated
program payment. The Plaintiff was required to respond by Feb. 25,
2019, to take advantage of her pre-approved status. The letter
informed Ms. Hopper: "Your pre-approval provides a no-risk
guarantee." It elaborated, "pre-approval guarantees the extra
deferral of fees that would have otherwise been due after each
account is successfully resolved." The letter also included a
notice that informed Hopper that "this 'pre-screened' offer of
credit" was based on information in her credit report.'"
The letter included a reference number, as well as a toll-free
number that Ms. Hopper could call to speak with a Certified Debt
Consultant. Around Jan. 23, 2019, the Plaintiff called the number
and spoke to a Credit Associates representative.
A second letter came shortly after the first, dated Jan. 25, 2019.
The letter informed Ms. Hopper that it was her "FINAL NOTICE." "Due
to ongoing balance changes," it explained, "we may never contact
you again so to ensure inclusion in our program, contact us
immediately as your activation terms are eligible until March 11,
2019." The deadline had apparently been extended, and though this
letter was similar to the first letter in most other respects, it
included that the estimated program payment for Ms. Hopper was $140
per month.
Ms. Hopper avers that she did not authorize Trans Union or Credit
Associates to request, provide and/or use her private financial
data to send her solicitations. She further claims that numerous
other Ohioans received those solicitations without applying for any
services and without giving Credit Associates and Trans Union
authority to access and use their private information for any
purpose. Finally, the Plaintiff concludes that both the Defendants
knew a resulting breach of privacy and other related injuries would
occur to her and all other similarly situated Ohio consumers due to
the Defendants' unlawful conduct.
Defendant Trans Union previously moved to dismiss two of the counts
filed against it for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. The Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that Trans
Union negligently and willfully violating the FCRA by providing
Credit Associates with consumer reports without a proper purpose.
This Court denied that motion.
Defendant Credit Associates moves to dismiss the claims against it
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Credit Associates
contend that Ms. Hopper lacks constitutional standing to bring the
case.
II. Discussion
Defendant Credit Associates challenges only whether Ms. Hopper
suffered an injury in fact sufficient to meet the first element of
the standing assessment. Plaintiff Ms. Hopper contends that the
Defendant violated the FCRA and that the statutory violations
constituted a breach of privacy sufficient to constitute an injury
in fact. Judge Sargus agrees.
A. The FCRA
The Plaintiff contends that the information the Defendants accessed
qualifies as a consumer report under the FCRA. To qualify as a
consumer report, the information must bear on at least one of the
following factors: A consumer's credit worthiness, credit standing,
credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal
characteristics or mode of living. In the present action, the
DPlaintiff alleges that the information and filters utilized to
acquire the information bear on all seven of the factors, including
the total unsecured debt balance.
Credit Associates contends that the "Plaintiff attempts to create
the illusion Credit Associates obtained her full 'consumer report'
in the sense of a credit report, including information such as a
social security number, a list of creditors, credit standing, and a
total amount and breakdown of all types of debt." It also argues
that there is a difference between "credit report" and "consumer
report," which it contends are legally distinguishable and yet
interchangeably used by Plaintiff.
Judge Sargus finds that it is unnecessary to determine whether the
Plaintiff inaptly uses the phrase consumer report or credit report.
This is because Credit Associates agrees with the Plaintiff that
the information obtained "about her and conveyed to Credit
Associates on a pre-screened list technically qualifies as a
'consumer report' under FCRA 15 U.S.C. Section 1681(a)(d)." Thus,
the parties are in agreement that the Plaintiff has sufficiently
alleged that the Defendants' actions technically violated the
FCRA.
The Defendant maintains, however, that the information it obtained
"is not an invasion of privacy constituting an injury-in-fact for
purposes of Article III which is a separate inquiry from whether
the FCRA was violated."
B. Injury
To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she
suffered 'an invasion of a legally protected interest' that is
'concrete and particularized' and 'actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical.'" The Defendant argues that the
Plaintiff has failed to show her injury is concrete or actual.
Judge Sargus opines that misuse of credit reporting data is the
harm the FCRA was designed to prevent by restricting access to
consumer reports to permissible purposes, as explained in detail
infra. This is the harm that the Plaintiff has alleged . Courts
have traditionally provided an avenue of relief for alleged
violations of privacy. Thus, Ms. Hopper has alleged harm having a
close relationship causes of action recognized as a traditional
basis for a lawsuit.
Moreover, Judge Sargus opines that in passing the FCRA, Congress
identified and elevated certain intangible harms that meet the
concreteness requirement, such as an invasion of privacy and the
misuse of consumer reporting data. Ms. Hopper sufficiently alleged
both. Therefore, the Plaintiff has shown that the meets the
requirements necessary for constitutional standing.
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Judge Sargus denied Defendant Credit
Associates' Motion to Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4mtbk3sd from Leagle.com.
CV SCIENCES: Faces Ruth Securities Suit in Nevada Court
-------------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, Inc. (CVSI) disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
fiscal year ended September 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 4, 2022, that it is facing a
shareholder derivative suit filed by a Michael Ruth in March 17,
2015, in the Nevada District Court alleging breach of fiduciary
duty and gross mismanagement.
Plaintiff's counsel recently informed the court that Mr. Ruth sold
his shares of CVSI stock and thus he no longer has standing to
pursue this claim. On September 20, 2019, the company filed a
motion to dismiss the Ruth action and the court issued a ruling
denying the motion to dismiss on November 24, 2020. The company
filed an answer to the Ruth complaint on January 11, 2021 and
discovery is ongoing. The court issued a schedule whereby discovery
ended on November 19, 2021.
CV Sciences, Inc. is a life science company that operates a
consumer product division focused on developing, manufacturing,
marketing and selling plant-based dietary supplements and
hemp-based cannabidiol products to a range of market sectors and a
specialty pharmaceutical segment focused on developing and
commercializing CBD-based novel therapeutics.
CV SCIENCES: Settlement in Smith Suit Get Initial Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, Inc. (CVSI) disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
fiscal year ended September 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 4, 2022, that in March 9, 2022, the
Nevada District Court issued an order granting preliminary approval
of the settlement of a purported class action filed by a David
Smith in August 24, 2018 and setting a hearing for final approval
of the settlement for July 2022.
Smith alleges certain misstatements in the company's public filings
that led to stock price fluctuations and financial harm. Several
additional individuals filed similar claims, and the Smith
complaint and each of the other suits all arise out of a report
published by Citron Research on Twitter on August 20, 2018,
suggesting that the company misled investors by failing to disclose
that the company's efforts to secure patent protection for
CVSI-007, a combination of CBD and nicotine used in smokeless
tobacco and in the treatment of addiction, had been rejected by the
United States Patent and Trademark Office. On November 15, 2018,
the court consolidated the actions. On January 4, 2019, counsel for
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On March 5,
2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the action. The court
denied the motion to dismiss on December 10, 2019, and the parties
commenced discovery in the action. Recently, the parties attended
mediation and reached a preliminary settlement to resolve this
matter for a total of $712,500. On March 9, 2022, the Nevada
District Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the
settlement and setting a hearing for final approval of the
settlement for July 2022.
CV Sciences, Inc. is a life science company that operates a
consumer product division focused on developing, manufacturing,
marketing and selling plant-based dietary supplements and
hemp-based cannabidiol products to a range of market sectors and a
specialty pharmaceutical segment focused on developing and
commercializing CBD-based novel therapeutics.
CVB INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CVB, Inc. The case is
styled as Richard Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CVB, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02915 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 7, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
CVB, Inc. is located in Logan, Utah and is part of the Home
Furnishings Stores Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
DAIRY FARMERS: Conspires to Reduce Grade A Milk Price, Othart Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
OTHART DAIRY FARMS, LLC, PAREO FARM, INC., PAREO FARM II, INC.,
DESERTLAND DAIRY, LLC, DEL ORO DAIRY, LLC, BRIGHT STAR DAIRY, LLC,
and SUNSET DAIRY, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC.,
SELECT MILK PRODUCERS, INC., and GREATER SOUTHWEST AGENCY,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00251-GJF-SMV (D.N.M., April 4, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for violation of Section 1
of the Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants and their
co-conspirators entered into a continuing agreement, understanding,
and/or conspiracy to fix, reduce, stabilize, or maintain at
artificially depressed values the sums paid for raw Grade A milk in
the Southwest U.S. and control at least 75 percent of the Southwest
market. The effect of Defendants' conspiracy has been devastating
to many dairy farmers, causing numerous farmers to borrow from
generations of equity built up in their land, relying on that
equity to pay themselves and keep their farms in operation. Many
Southwestern dairy farmers have been forced to declare bankruptcy
and completely closed their operations. The Plaintiffs and Class
members have been injured and will continue to be injured in their
businesses and property by being paid less for raw Grade A milk.
Othart Dairy Farms, LLC is an owner and operator of a dairy farm
located in Veguita, New Mexico.
Pareo Farm, Inc. is an owner and operator of a dairy farm located
in Veguita, New Mexico.
Pareo Farm II, Inc. is an owner and operator of a dairy farm
located in Veguita, New Mexico.
Desertland Dairy, LLC is an owner and operator of a dairy farm
located in Vado, New Mexico.
Del Oro Dairy, LLC is an owner and operator of a dairy farm located
in Mesquite, New Mexico.
Bright Star Dairy, LLC is an owner and operator of a dairy farm
located in Mesquite, New Mexico.
Sunset Dairy, LLC is an owner and operator of a dairy farm located
in Mesquite, New Mexico.
Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. is a not-for-profit corporation,
with its principal place of business at 1405 N. 98th Street, Kansas
City, Kansas.
Select Milk Producers, Inc. is a not-for-profit marketing
cooperative association, with its principal place of business
located at 320 W. Hermosa Drive, Artesia, New Mexico.
Greater Southwest Agency is an agency was founded by Dairy Farmers
of America, Inc., Select Milk Producers, Inc., Lone Star Milk
Producers, and Zia Milk Producers. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark T. Baker, Esq.
PEIFER, HANSON, MULLINS & BAKER, P.A.
20 First Plaza, Suite 725
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: (505) 247-4800
Facsimile: (505) 243-6458
E-mail: mbaker@peiferlaw.com
- and –
W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
Brian D. Clark, Esq.
Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
bdclark@locklaw.com
sjteti@locklaw.com
- and –
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
- and –
Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com
- and –
Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (213) 330-7150
Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com
DC METROPOLITAN POLICE: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Sept. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAPPAS v. METROPOLITAN
POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-02800 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Rudolph Contreras entered an
order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery as
follows:
-- Non-expert class discovery will May 31, 2022
close on:
-- The Plaintiffs' class expert May 31, 2022
disclosures must be served by:
-- The Defendants' rebuttal class July 1, 2022
expert disclosures must be served
by:
-- Expert depositions must be August 1, 2022
completed by:
-- The Plaintiffs are to file September 1, 2022
their Motion for Class
Certification on or before:
-- The Defendants are to file October 3, 2022
their Opposition to Class
Certification on or before:
-- The Plaintiffs are to file October 17, 2022
a Reply in Support of Their
Motion for Class Certification
on or before:
The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990.
The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia,
more commonly known as the Metropolitan Police Department and the
DC Police, is the primary law enforcement agency for the District
of Columbia, in the United States.[CC]
DLH HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bendolph Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY BENDOLPH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DLH HOLDINGS CORPORATION d/b/a
DLH CORPORATION and DLH; and IRVING BURTON ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00401 (E.D. Va., April 7, 2022) seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime compensation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Bendolph was employed by the Defendant as accountant.
DLH HOLDINGS CORP. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides health technology-enabled
business process outsourcing, training and technical assistance,
staffing support, and program management solutions. DLH Holdings
serves customers in the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy Coffield, Esq.
COFFIELD PLC
106-F Melbourne Park Circle
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Telephone: (434) 218-3133
Facsimile: (434) 321-1636
Email: tc@coffieldlaw.com
DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE: Faces Benson Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------
DoubleDown Interactive Co., Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 4, 2022, that a
putative class action lawsuit captioned "Benson, et al. v.
DoubleDown Interactive and International Game Technology (IGT),"
was filed against DDI-US in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington in April 2018.
Said action alleges that the use of the DoubleDown Casino Facebook
and mobile applications violated the Washington's Recovery of Money
Lost at Gambling Act (WRMLGA) and Consumer Protection Act (CPA).
The plaintiffs make their allegations on behalf of themselves and
"all persons in the United States who purchased and lost chips by
wagering at the DoubleDown Casino." Plaintiffs seek to recover, on
behalf of themselves and the class, among other things, all money
they wagered and lost playing DDI-US games and treble damages.
Plaintiffs also seek injunctive and/or declaratory relief as
necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiff and the class.
On November 13, 2018, the District Court denied DDI-US's motion to
compel arbitration. DDI-US filed an appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing that plaintiff's
action should have been dismissed because their individual cases
are subject to the arbitration agreement in the applicable Terms of
Use. On January 29, 2020, DDI-US's appeal to the Ninth Circuit was
denied and the case was remanded to the District Court for further
proceedings. On June 17, 2020, the company filed a motion in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, which, if granted, would certify certain questions of
state law to the Washington State Supreme Court for interpretation
in accordance with applicable state law.
On August 11, 2020, the District Court denied DDI-US's motion to
certify certain questions to the Washington State Supreme Court.
DDI-US subsequently filed a motion asking the court to reconsider
this decision which, on January 15, 2021, was denied. On August 13,
2020, DDI-US filed a motion to strike the plaintiffs' nationwide
class allegations, which, on March 19, 2021, was denied. On
September 10, 2020, DDI-US filed a complaint in Washington State
court against the two plaintiffs in the federal court case arguing
that, since the gambling law referenced in the federal action is a
Washington state law, any complaint should be litigated in
Washington State court. On February 25, 2021, plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification and for preliminary injunction.
Discovery in the federal court case has commenced and is
continuing. On July 19, 2021, the court ordered that the parties
hold a settlement conference by September 7, 2021. On April 25,
2021, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint, changing
their allegations to include an additional corporate entity of
co-defendant, IGT. DDI-US served plaintiffs with its expert
disclosures and filed an Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and Preliminary Injunction on May 11, 2021. On June
29, 2021, the court denied the Company's motion for the
certification of an interlocutory appeal from the court's order
denying the Company's Motion to Strike Nationwide Class Action
Allegations. No trial date has been set at this time.
DoubleDown Interactive Co., Ltd. is into computer processing and
data preparation, gaming in particular and is based in Seoul, South
Korea.
DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD: Helms File Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE and TARAN HELM,
individually and as next friends for JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2 and
JANE DOE 3, et al., v. DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Case No.
3:21-cv-00900-TJC-LLL (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying the case as a class action.
The Plaintiffs have proposed the following class definition:
parents or legal guardians, who are residents of Duval County,
Florida, with children between the ages of five and 18, who attend
or previously attended a Duval County Public School between August
and December 2021, and were subject to the Emergency Rule adopted
August 23, 2021 ("Mask Mandate"); but would have chosen to have
their children attend school unmasked without any pre-conditions if
given the option.
The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the operative complaint
and incorporated memorandum of Law attaching the Second Amended
Complaint for Class Action Relief seeking general and special
damages for Duval County School Board's violation of 42 U.S.C.
section 1983 is being filed simultaneously.
In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs each allege damages in
excess of $30,000.00 exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney's
fees, against a chartered county's public school district located
in Florida.
The Plaintiffs also allege damages on behalf of a Florida class of
similarly situated individuals with children attending Duval County
Public Schools during the relevant time period and subject to the
Mask Mandate, such damages in excess of $10,000,000.00.
Duval County Public Schools is the 22nd largest school district in
the U.S., 6th largest in Florida, operates 195 schools, and serves
125,000+ students.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 23, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uwBmMW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory A. Anderson, Esq.
Nicholas P. Whitney, Esq.
ANDERSONGLENN LLP
10751 Deerwood Park Boulevard, No. 105
Jacksonville, FL 32256
Telephone: (904) 273-4734
Facsimile: (904) 273-4712
E-mail: gaanderson@asglaw.com
nwhitney@asglaw.com
DYKES LUMBER: Case Management Plan Entered in Ortega Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN ORTEGA, Individually,
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. DYKES LUMBER
COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-10064-ALC-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Gabriel W. Corenstein entered a Discovery Schedule order:
-- Deadline to amend pleadings/ April 25, 2022
Joinder of Parties:
-- The parties shall exchange April 25, 2022
Interrogatories and Requests
for Documents:
-- Completion of fact discovery: July 22, 2022
-- Expert disclosures, if any, August 5, 2022
must be made by:
-- Completion of expert discovery: September 5, 2022
The Plaintiff brings this class-action against Defendant on both an
individual basis and on behalf of a nationwide class against
Defendant for its violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).
Specifically, the Defendant allegedly failed to design the website
that it owns and operates, www.dykeslumber.com to be equally
accessible to the visually impaired as it is to sighted
individuals. Defendant's website offers an array of goods and
services that consumers can purchase online, including different
types of lumber and building materials. Defendant’s website also
provides information about itself and the products and services it
sells.
The Defendant's website is not properly designed and operated to be
read by screen-reading software. Because of this, Plaintiff
encountered multiple barriers that denied Plaintiff access to the
website equal to the access sighted individuals enjoy. Plaintiff
could not, for example, learn about the goods and services offered
for purchase on Defendant's website. The Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant's website is a "place of public accommodation" under the
ADA and a "place or provider of public accommodation" under the
NYCHRL, the lawsuit says/
The Plaintiff is legally blind and uses a screen-reader.
Dykes Lumber distributes building materials.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xrrEgV at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
William J. Downes, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 595-6200
E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
wdownes@mizrahikroub.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Arthur J. Robb, Esq.
CLIFTON BUDD & DEMARIA, LLP
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6110
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: 212 687-7410
Facsimile: 212 687-3285
E-mail: ajrobb@cbdm.com
ECO-BAGS PRODUCTS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eco-Bags Products,
Inc. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Eco-Bags Products, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-02947 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
ECOBAGS -- https://www.ecobags.com/ -- is a manufacturer and vendor
of eco-friendly reusable bags.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Curts Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Connie Curts, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Edgewell Personal Care Company,
Edgewell Personal Care, LLC, Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC,
Playtex Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. 2016-CV17871, was removed
from the Circuit Court of Jackson County MO, to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri on April 8, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-00235-GAF to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
The Edgewell Personal Care Company -- https://edgewell.com/ -- is
an American multinational consumer products company headquartered
in Shelton, Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher S. Shank, Esq.
David Lee Heinemann, Esq.
SHANK & HEINEMANN, LLC
1968 Shawnee Mission Parkway, Suite 100
Mission Woods, KS 66205
Phone: (816) 471-0909
Fax: (816) 471-3888
Email: chris@shanklawfirm.com
david@shanklawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
John W. Moticka, Esq.
STINSON LLP - STL 1100
7700 Forsyth Blvd., Ste. 1100
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 259-4562
Fax: (314) 259-4467
Email: john.moticka@stinson.com
- and -
Ashley Marie Crisafulli, Esq.
1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900
Kansas City, MO 64106
Phone: (816) 691-2676
Email: ashley.crisafulli@stinson.com
- and -
Megan A. McCurdy, Esq.
STINSON LLP - KC 2900
1201 Walnut St., Ste. 2900
Kansas City, MO 64106
Phone: (816) 691-2649
Email: megan.mccurdy@stinson.com
ELECTRO-OPTIX INC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Electro-Optix, Inc.
The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Electro-Optix, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02946 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Electro-Optix -- https://www.electro-optix.com/ -- has been
producing magnifiers, loupes, and magnifying glass & vision aids
for over 50 yrs in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
ENERFIN RESOURCES: Harris Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joanna Harris Deitrich
Trust A, Trustee Marian D. Browne, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, v. Enerfin Resources I Limited
Partnership, et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-00084-KEW (E.D. Okla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the Settlement Class for Settlement purposes;
"All non-excluded persons or entities who: (1) received
late payments under the PRSA from Defendants (or
Defendants' designee) for oil-and-gas proceeds from
Oklahoma wells during the Claim Period; or (2) whose
proceeds were remitted to unclaimed property divisions of
any government entity by Defendants during the Claim
Period; and (3) whose payments or whose unclaimed property
did not include the statutory interest required by the
PRSA;"
Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendants, their
affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and
directors; and (2) agencies, departments, or
instrumentalities of the United States of America or the
State of Oklahoma;
2. preliminarily approving the Settlement;
3. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative for the
Settlement Class;
4. appointing Reagan E. Bradford, Ryan K. Wilson, and Jim U.
White, Jr. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class;
5. approving the form and manner of the proposed Notice;
6. appointing JND Legal Administration as Settlement
Administrator;
7. appointing MidFirst Bank as Escrow Agent; and
8. setting a hearing date for final approval of the
Settlement and application for an award of Attorneys'
Fees, Litigation Expenses and Administration, Notice, and
Distribution Costs, and a Case Contribution Award to
Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff initiated this action on March 19, 2020, alleging
that Defendant ERI violated Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards
Act, (PRSA), by failing to pay statutory interest owed on the
payment of oil-and-gas proceeds made outside of the timelines set
out in the PRSA.
The Defendant answered on April 28, 2020. The parties further
jointly moved for a proposed protective order, and the Court
entered the protective order on May 28, 2020. The parties further
conferred and submitted a joint status report to the Court on June
19, 2020.
Enerfin was founded in 1986 and is a privately held natural gas and
crude oil midstream field services business.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 24, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xlAEUB at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
431 W. Main Street, Suite D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 698-2770
E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
ryan@bradwil.com
- and -
James U. White, Jr., Esq.
JAMES U. WHITE, JR., INC.
P.O. Box 54783
Oklahoma City, OK 73154
Telephone: (405) 842-7545
Facsimile: (405) 235-1592
E-mail: jwhite@wcgflaw.com
EPIC LANDSCAPE: Settlement in Albelo Suit Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RADAMES MOLINA ALBELO,
o/b/o himself and all other persons similarly situated, v. EPIC
LANDSCAPE PRODUCTIONS, L.C., Case No. 4:17-cv-0454-DGK (W.D. Mo.),
the Hon. Judge Greg Kays entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion for attorneys' fee/costs and for final approval:
-- The Court awards class counsel $268,191.72 in fees and
expenses. This amount shall be paid within 30 days of the
date of this order.
-- The Court grants final approval to this settlement which
was initially approved by the Court on August 17, 2021.
The Court said, "while the Court is certain Mr. Hodgson and his
staff worked on this case, it has no idea exactly how much time
they spent working on this case. Frankly, the Court doubts Mr.
Hodgson has a very good idea either. At any rate, given the
deficiencies in the "detailed time records" Mr. Hodgson submitted,
the number of hours Mr. Hodgson claims to have worked on this case,
333.45 hours, is not reliable.
This would typically result in the Court reducing the amount of
attorneys' fees awarded. However, because the amount of attorneys'
fees Plaintiffs are seeking is relatively modest to begin with --
$250,000 -- and the lodestar analysis is almost satisfied with the
hours worked on this case the other two attorneys and their staffs
-- $242,093, the Court can still award the entire amount sought
because it is certain Mr. Hodgson and his staff performed at least
$8,000 worth of work on this case. As for Defendant's concern, the
Court sees nothing in the records that indicates counsel is seeking
to be compensated for work related to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) claims that were dismissed or for which class certification
was denied.
Epic Landscape specializes in designing and building creative,
functional and landscapes.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3662jxG at no extra charge.[CC]
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Seeks to Decertify Classes in Munguia-Brown
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAVANNI MUNGUIA-BROWN, et
al., v. EQUITY RESIDENTIAL, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-01225-JSW
(N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order
decertifying all the classes the Court has certified in this case.
Here, the Plaintiffs previously proposed resolving this problem by
asking the Court to prevent Equity Residential from asserting a
voluntary payment defense or finding that the voluntary payment
defense did not apply to any class member as a matter of law. The
Court has correctly rejected that argument three times. The
argument will fare no better the fourth time around.If a defense
makes the case "untenable" as a class action, the solution is not
to strike the defense; the solution is to deny certification. The
recent deposition testimony of Plaintiffs’ own experts and this
Court's recent summary judgment ruling show that individualized
issues will predominate. As a result, class certification is
neither manageable nor appropriate. The Court should thus grant
Equity's motion and decertify the classes, the Defendants contend.
This motion is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
on the grounds that:
(1) The Plaintiffs' experts have testified that determining
liability requires individualized inquiries;
(2) The Plaintiffs' experts have admitted that the certified
classes include individuals who suffered no injury and
that there is no way -- without individualized inquiries
-- to distinguish injured from uninjured class members;
and
(3) resolving the voluntary payment defense will require the
resolution of individualized issues, as the Court's
recent summary judgment ruling highlights.
The Plaintiffs are current and former tenants in Equity's
California properties who were charged a late fee when they
breached their lease agreements by failing to timely pay rent.
The Plaintiffs claim that the late fee was an unlawful liquidated
damages provision. Equity disagrees. But even if the late fee is
void, Equity is entitled to recover the actual damages resulting
from Plaintiffs' breach.
So even if the late fee is void, Plaintiffs are liable to
defendants for the amount f the actual damages caused and
Plaintiffs would only be entitled to a refund of late fees if the
late fees Plaintiffs paid exceeded the damages Plaintiffs caused.
When Plaintiffs moved for class certification, they promised the
Court that their claims and Equity's defenses could be fairly
adjudicated using common proof and aggregate data.
Equity Residential is a publicly-traded real estate investment
trust that invests in apartments.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 24, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jxCEko at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Aaron T. Winn, Esq.
Karen L. Alexander, Esq.
Justin J. Fields, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
750 B Street, Suite 2900
San Diego, CA 92101-4681
Telephone: (619) 744.2200
Facsimile: (619) 744.2201
E-mail: atwinn@duanemorris.com
klalexander@duanemorris.com
jfields@duanemorris.com
EVENT MEDIC: Munoz Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ESME MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. EVENT MEDIC NY INC.; JEFF SAPERSTEIN;
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV07314, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 5, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-02294 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide all earned minimum and overtime
wages, failure to provide meal break, failure to provide rest
breaks, failure to provide lawful wage statements, failure to pay
wages upon ending employment, wrongful constructive termination,
unfair competition, and civil penalties.
Event Medic NY Inc. is an emergency care services provider in North
Massapequa, New York. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Barry Z. Brodsky, Esq.
Allyson K. Thompson, Esq.
Laura Birnbaum, Esq.
KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK LLP
21515 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 450
Torrance, CA 90503-6531
Telephone: (310) 540-2000
Facsimile: (310) 575-9720
E-mail: bbrodsky@kdvlaw.com
athompson@kdvlaw.com
lbirnbaum@kdvlaw.com
EXCLUSIVE ROSA'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perez Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
WALTER A. PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXCLUSIVE ROSA'S PIZZA INC. d/b/a ROSA'S
PIZZA; and COLOGERO TROIA, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02019
(E.D.N.Y., April 8, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff Perez was employed by the Defendants as cook.
EXCLUSIVE ROSA'S PIZZA INC. d/b/a ROSA'S PIZZA owns and operates
pizza in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, New York 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
FARMERS INSURANCE: Joint Stipulation Sched Hearing Date Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC,
et al v. The Farmers Insurance Exchange, et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-02559-CAS-PL (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Christina A.
Snyder entered an order denying the third joint stipulation
scheduling hearing Date and briefing schedule On:
(1) Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and/or Partial
Summary Judgment; and
(2) Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vdxCyV at no extra charge.[CC]
FARMLAND PARTNERS: Suit Over Alleged Stock Price Drop Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in Colorado dismissed with prejudice the
class action lawsuit brought against Farmland Partners Inc. (NYSE:
FPI) (the "Company" or "FPI") and its management team after FPI's
stock price dropped sharply immediately following the short and
distort scheme against the Company in the summer of 2018.
In a 21-page reasoned order, the court granted FPI's Motion for
Summary Judgment, ruling that no jury could reasonably find in
plaintiff's favor on claims stemming from a July 2018 attack
published on the financial website "Seeking Alpha" as part of a
short and distort scheme targeting FPI, management, and its
stockholders.
As noted in the court's order, the author of the Seeking Alpha
publication "since admitted that several of the allegations were
inaccurate," and that "he and his clients - particularly a hedge
fund called Sabrepoint Capital - shorted Farmland stock before the
Report was published and profited off the ensuing price drop."
The court went on to dismiss each of plaintiff's claims with
prejudice, including claims relating to FPI's loan program, alleged
related party transactions, and allegations that FPI's executives
sought to defraud investors. FPI is unable to predict whether the
plaintiff will appeal the court's ruling.
"After nearly four years, this judgment on the merits should
finally slam the door on the baseless attacks against our company,
its leadership, and most importantly its shareholders," said FPI
Chairman and CEO Paul Pittman, who was named in the class action
lawsuit.
"We were the target of short-sellers who knowingly published false
information about our company to manipulate FPI's stock price in
order to earn large profits for themselves and at the expense of
our shareholders," he explained. "Even though we were successful in
unmasking the perpetrators and the falsity of this blatantly
manipulative scheme, we nevertheless have had to continue to defend
the resulting class action lawsuit at significant corporate
expense. We are thankful that the court rightly ruled in our favor
and put an end to this frivolous litigation and its continuing cost
to our shareholders."
In June 2021, Quinton Mathews, the previously anonymous author of
the 2018 accusations against the Company, admitted the falsity of
his work, acknowledged he was hired by a hedge fund that shorted
FPI stock, and agreed to return a multiple of the trading profits
he gained. A copy of Mr. Mathews' admission can be viewed at
https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/47800059-rota-fortunae/5605955-mathews-settlement-press-release.
FPI is still pursuing litigation against the hedge fund that hired
Mathews.
The court's ruling can be read in its entirety at
http://ir.farmlandpartners.com/Judgment.
About Farmland Partners
Farmland Partners Inc. is an internally managed real estate company
that owns and seeks to acquire high-quality North American farmland
and makes loans to farmers secured by farm real estate. As of the
date of this release, the Company owns and/or manages nearly
187,000 acres in 19 states, including Alabama, Arkansas,
California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North
Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia. We have
approximately 26 crop types and more than 100 tenants. The Company
elected to be taxed as a real estate investment trust, or REIT, for
U.S. federal income tax purposes, commencing with the taxable year
ended December 31, 2014. Additional information:
www.farmlandpartners.com or (720) 452-3100.[GN]
FIESTA FLOORING: Ariz. App. Affirms Dismissal of Hannah's Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW LAWRENCE HANNAH, Plaintiff/Appellant v. FIESTA
FLOORING LLC, et al., Defendant/Appellee, Case No. 1 CA-CV 21-0492
(Ariz. App.), the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, the
superior court's order dismissing Hannah's claims for unpaid
overtime wages.
I. Background
Throughout the action, Hannah alleged Fiesta Flooring refused to
pay him and coworkers overtime pay while requiring workweeks
exceeding 70 hours. He alleged Fiesta Flooring fired him in July
2017 for taking two days off to get married. He was homeless soon
after.
An attorney representing a class action lawsuit against Fiesta
Flooring contacted Hannah and sought to persuade him to join the
class (Hawthorn v. Fiesta Flooring, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00019 WJ/SCY,
2020 WL 3085921 (D.N.M. June 10, 2020)). Hannah believed he had
joined, but after the parties settled, the attorney wrote to Hannah
explaining he could not recover from the settlement because he did
not submit a signed consent to join the class.
In January 2021, Hannah filed an individual claim against Fiesta
Flooring in the U.S. District Court, seeking $20,000 in unpaid
wages. The court dismissed the claim as time-barred under 29 U.S.C.
Section 255.
In March 2021, Hannah filed the same allegations in the superior
court and requested $40,000. A.R.S. Section 23-364(G) states that
any employer who fails to pay the wages or earned paid sick time
required under this article will be required to pay the employee
the balance of the wages or earned paid sick time owed, including
interest thereon, and an additional amount equal to twice the
underpaid wages or earned paid sick time.
Fiesta Flooring moved to dismiss, arguing the statute of limitation
had lapsed for the state-law claim. Claims made under A.R.S.
Section 23-364(H)are subject to two- or three-year statute of
limitation.
The court granted Fiesta Flooring's motion and dismissed Hannah's
complaint with prejudice.
Mr. Hannah appealed.
II. Discussion
The Court of Appeals reviews a judgment granting a motion to
dismiss for an abuse of discretion but reviews de novo the superior
court's statutory interpretation.
Mr. Hannah argues that he would have filed sooner had he not been
incarcerated. He asserts that the prison's law library was closed
for weeks because of COVID-19 restrictions, and he lacked access to
the legal forms necessary to initiate the action whenever the law
librarian was not present. But Hannah waived the issue because he
did not raise it.
The Court of Appeals finds no error in the court's decision. It
says, even when an employer willfully violates Arizona's wage and
employee benefits protections, a civil action to enforce them must
be commenced within three years. As the superior court found,
A.R.S. Section 23-364(H) required Hannah to file his complaint by
the end of July 2020, about seven months before he filed. His
complaint is time-barred.
III. Conclusion
The Court of Appeals affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Memorandum Decision
is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8smhac from Leagle.com.
Matthew Lawrence Hannah, Buckeye, for the Plaintiff/Appellant.
Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C., Phoenix, By John G. Sestak, Jr.
-- jsestak@jsslaw.com -- Counsel for the Defendant/Appellee.
FIRST STUDENT: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued to May 26
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA GALVAN and CYNTHIA
PROVENCIO, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated,
v. FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; FIRST STUDENT, INC., a Delaware corporation; FIRSTGROUP
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; FIRST TRANSIT, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
4:18-cv-07378-JST (N.D.Cal.), the Court entered an order granting
Parties' stipulation to further continue the deadlines for the
class certification briefing schedule and hearing date as follows:
Current New
Deadline Deadline
-- Reply to Opposition to March 31, 2022 April 21, 2022
Motion for Class
Certification
-- Hearing on Plaintiff's April 28, 2022 May 26, 2022
Motion for Class
Certification
On August 9, 2021, this Court extended the deadline for Plaintiffs
to file a Motion for Class Certification and continued the briefing
schedule on that motion. The Plaintiffs were to file their Motion
by October 14, 2021, the Defendants' Opposition deadline was set
for December 16, 2021, and Plaintiff's Reply was set for January
10, 2022.
On October 14, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification. The Court continued the remaining briefing schedule
such that Defendants' Opposition was set for February 3, 2022, and
Plaintiff's Reply was set for March 31, 2022.
On February 3, 2022, Defendants filed their Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
FSM is a professional education consultancy company in the United
Kingdom providing educational advice and student-support.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KELusE at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
William M. Pao, Esq.
Barbara Galvan, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Blvd, Ste. 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2446
Telephone: (310) 888-7771
Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
E-mail: william@setarehlaw.com
shaun@setarehlaw.com
nolan@setarehlaw.com
- and -
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Anwar D. Burton, Esq.
Cynthia Provencio, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
Website: www.lelawfirm.com
8889 W Olympic Blvd Ste 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David J. Dow, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
501 W Broadway #900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 232-0441
Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
E-mail: ddow@littler.com
FORD MOTOR: California Court Denies Bids to Strike in Miller Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California denies the Defendant's duplicate
motions to strike in the lawsuit captioned VANESSA MILLER, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-1796-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.).
Presently before the Court are Defendant Ford Motor Company's
duplicate motions to strike the Plaintiffs' first sets of discovery
requests, or in the alternative for a protective order deferring
Ford's obligation to respond to this discovery until after the
assigned District Judge rules on Ford's pending motion to stay all
discovery. Following an informal discovery conference on the matter
with Judge Delaney, the parties filed a joint statement regarding
the discovery disagreement, along with supporting exhibits. The
Court took the motion under submission, and already heard the
parties' arguments at the recent informal discovery conference.
Background
The lawsuit is a putative class action product defect case, based
on allegedly defective "Ecoboost engines" in various makes and
models of Ford vehicles across 16 states. Due to the odd procedural
posture of this motion, the substance of the complaint is not
particularly relevant to the motion's resolution.
The case was filed in September 2020, originally on behalf of a
proposed California-based class. After two rounds of motions to
dismiss (which were not ruled on), stipulated amendment and
eventual stipulated consolidation of related cases, the operative
Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed on June 21, 2021.
On Aug. 2, 2021, Ford moved to dismiss all 51 claims in the
Consolidated Complaint for failure to state a claim. On Aug. 26,
2021, the parties met and conferred in compliance with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 26(f). The Joint Rule 26(f) Statement following
that conference conveyed the parties' opposing views on whether
discovery should proceed, with Ford indicating that it would seek a
stay of discovery until its motion to dismiss was ruled upon.
On Sept. 21, 2021, Ford indeed filed a motion to stay discovery,
noticing the motion for hearing before the assigned District Judge,
the Honorable Troy L. Nunley, on Oct. 28, 2021. Both the motion to
dismiss and the motion to stay were fully briefed, and on Oct. 19,
2021, Judge Nunley took both motions under submission without oral
argument. Both motions remain pending before Judge Nunley.
The Plaintiffs had not served any discovery on Ford at the time of
the filing of Ford's motion to stay, and the Plaintiffs' counsel
conveyed at the informal discovery conference that they were
initially willing to wait for Judge Nunley's ruling on the motion.
However, after four months or so, the Plaintiffs decided to
proceed. On Feb. 8, 2022, the Plaintiffs served Ford with a First
Set of Requests for Production, totaling 73 requests, and a First
Set of Interrogatories, totaling 4 interrogatories (collectively,
"the Discovery Requests").
After unsuccessful meet and confer efforts regarding whether these
Discovery Requests were premature, on March 2, 2022, Ford filed its
original motion to strike the Discovery Requests, or in the
alternative for a protective order (hereafter "Motion for
Protective Order") deferring Ford's obligation to respond until
after Judge Nunley's ruling on the motion to stay. The motion was
set for hearing before Judge Delaney on March 23, 2022, but prior
to the hearing the parties agreed to an informal discovery
conference with Judge Delaney.
The informal discovery conference was held on March 9, 2022. At the
conference, the Court conveyed its view that discovery was open
notwithstanding Ford's filing of the motion to stay--and that the
court did not see how it could grant Ford's Motion for Protective
Order without undercutting Judge Nunley's ability to rule on the
submitted motion to stay. Ford indicated that it might seek a
formal ruling on the Motion for Protective Order in order to have
the chance to request reconsideration by Judge Nunley.
The Court agreed to issue such ruling if Ford opted to proceed with
the previously noticed Motion for Protective Order. On March 16,
2022, Ford re-filed its Motion for Protective Order, along with a
formal joint statement by all parties regarding the discovery
disagreement.
Discussion
As discussed at the informal discovery conference, Judge Delaney
holds that the Plaintiffs are correct that discovery opened on Aug.
26, 2021, after the parties met for their Rule 26(f) conference.
This is not an exempted proceeding, and Ford identifies no other
federal rule, stipulation, or court order that alters the default
presumption that discovery requests are permissible now that the
parties have conferred under Rule 26(f).
Filing the motion to stay, in and of itself, did not change the
situation, Judge Delaney notes. Ford cites no cases to the
contrary, instead presenting arguments and cases about whether
discovery should proceed while a motion to dismiss is pending.
While there may be merit to these arguments, they are arguments to
be considered by Judge Nunley in resolving the motion to stay which
remains submitted before him.
Ford argues that granting the instant Motion for Protective Order
"is the only means of preserving the status quo and allowing Judge
Nunley to reach a decision" on the motion to stay. The Court
disagrees.
Judge Delaney explains that the current status quo is that
discovery is open and may therefore proceed unless and until the
Court orders otherwise. Granting Ford's motion would alter the
status quo, not preserve it, by effectively halting discovery
before Judge Nunley has ruled on the motion to stay discovery.
At the informal discovery conference, Ford argued that it is
seeking narrower relief than that requested in the motion to stay
before Judge Nunley--because Ford seeks only protection from the
instant Discovery Requests and only until Judge Nunley rules on the
motion to stay. However, granting Ford protection from these first
sets of discovery would likely mean that Ford would also enjoy
protection from any further discovery requests from the Plaintiffs
before the motion to stay is decided, and there is a distinct
possibility that Judge Nunley may rule on the motion to stay at the
same time that he rules on the co-pending motion to dismiss, Judge
Delaney opines. In that case, granting Ford's current Motion for
Protective Order would effectively be granting, in its entirety,
the motion to stay that is before Judge Nunley.
Because it would be improper to rule, in effect, on a motion
pending before the district judge, Judge Delaney cannot grant the
relief requested in Ford's Motion for Protective Order.
The Court understands the difficult position in which Ford finds
itself, due to the district court's case load. The Plaintiffs are
encouraged to make good on their offer (expressed at the informal
discovery conference) to avoid "onerous areas" of discovery or
discovery on subjects that might be rendered irrelevant by the
dismissal of certain claims--until the motion to stay is resolved.
However, the Court will neither order the Plaintiffs' Discovery
Requests stricken nor issue a protective order to defer Ford's
discovery obligations, given the pending motion to stay.
Conclusion
For these reasons, Defendant Ford's motions to strike, or for a
protective order are denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated March 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/26yzdsvs from Leagle.com.
FORD MOTOR: Weidman Class Status Bid Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Weidman, et al., v. Ford
Motor Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-12719 (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge
Gershwin A. Drain entered an order granting in part and denying in
part the defendant's motion for summary judgment and granting in
part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving torts -- personal injury -- motor vehicle product
liability.
Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, United States. It was founded
by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903.[CC]
FORMAN MILLS: Underpays Loss Prevention Managers, Rodriguez Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAULINE RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORMAN MILLS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01329 (E.D. Pa., April 6, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's failure to properly pay Plaintiff and all similarly
situated employees of Defendant overtime compensation pursuant to
the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
Ms. Rodriguez was employed by the Defendant as a loss prevention
manager from May 2019 until her separation from employment on
February 25, 2022.
Forman Mills, Inc. is a clothing company based in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Schreiber, Esq.
Michael Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 273-1054
Facsimile: (215) 525-021
E-mail: aschreiber@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
FORSTER & GARBUS: New York Court Dismisses Green FDCPA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joanna Seybert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York dismissed the case, HAROLD GREEN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
FORSTER & GARBUS, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-3550 (JS) (SIL)
(E.D.N.Y.), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I. Introduction
Presently before the Court in the putative class action brought
pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"), are the objections of Defendant
Forster & Garbus ("F&G") to Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke's
Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that the summary judgment motion
of Plaintiff Green be granted and that the Defendant's motion to
deny class certification be denied. The Plaintiff opposes the
Defendant's objections.
II. Background
The case is a result of the Plaintiff receiving the Notice from
Defendant regarding an alleged debt obligation resulting from
credit card transactions. In the Notice, three different entities
are identified, with: The first entity labeled the "Original
Creditor"; the second entity labeled the "Judgement [sic]
Creditor"; and, the third entity labeled the "Current Owner of
Account." There is no indication in the Notice which of the three
entities, if any, the Defendant represents. Moreover, the Notice
instructs the Plaintiff to pay his debt to F&G as attorneys. The
"Plaintiff avers that, prior to receiving the Notice, he did not
know, nor had he dealt or corresponded with" any of the three
entities.
III. Analysis
While the matter is before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Locke's
thorough and well-reasoned R&R on the underlying Summary Judgment
Motion and Deny Cert. Motion, because the Defendant challenges the
Plaintiff's standing and because the Court may proceed only if it
has the jurisdiction to do so, Judge Seybert turns directly to that
issue.
Relying upon TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, ___ U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct.
2190 (June 25, 2021), the Defendant advances its jurisdictional
argument asserting that the "Plaintiff has not suffered any
concrete and/or particularized harm as a result of the Defendant's
alleged FDCPA allegations." Rather, because the "Plaintiff has not
alleged nor proven that he undertook any action to his detriment
based upon the alleged confusion concerning the identity of the
creditor, he lacks the required Article III standing." The
Defendant contends the same is true regarding the attempt to
collect a debt that is not due: even though it constitutes a
violation of the FDCPA, that by itself is insufficient to create
Article III standing; instead, a plaintiff must show a FDCPA
violation caused harm. Hence, notwithstanding the Magistrate
Judge's R&R, the Defendant advances that the case be dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
In response, the Plaintiff contends "the argument must be rejected
insofar as in a post-TransUnion world, Courts considering FDCPA
cases must necessarily consider the question of Article III
standing as a condition precedent to issuing any decision on the
merits." He encourages the Court to "find that the Defendant's
knowing obfuscation of the identity of the Plaintiff's creditor is
sufficient to confer Article III standing on the Plaintiff, because
the misidentification of his creditor would materially impact his
decision to respond to the Letter, or what that response should be,
if any."
Judge Seybert explains that to demonstrate injury in fact, a
plaintiff must show the invasion of a [1] legally protected
interest that is [2] concrete and [3] particularized and [4] actual
or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." She says, notably
missing from the Plaintiff's Objection is any indication of the
concrete injury in fact that he suffered. As the Supreme Court
began in its recent TransUnion decision: 'No concrete harm; no
standing.'
Indeed, the Plaintiff does not advance any meaningful argument that
he suffered a harm to a tangible or an intangible interest, but
merely baldly contends "the misidentification of his creditor would
materially impact his decision to respond to the Letter." At best,
upon the record presented, the Plaintiff's purported harm is
conjectural since there is no record evidence that the alleged
misidentification of his creditor did materially impact his
decision to respond to the Notice, which falls short of
establishing standing to proceed with the action.
Nor, upon de novo review of the case record, does the Court find
any evidence that the Plaintiff suffered a concrete injury
sufficient to establish standing. That absence "deprives the Court
of subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed."
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, Judge Seybert dismissed the action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/3pfp9zmj from Leagle.com.
For Plaintiff: Jonathan M. Cader, Esq. -- jcader@sbglawny.com --
Craig B. Sanders. Esq. -- csanders@barshaysanders.com -- Sanders
Law Group, in Garden City, New York.
For Defendant: Robert L. Arleo, Esq. -- RArleoESq@gmail.com --
Robert L. Arleo, ESQ., P.C., in New York City.
FRITO-LAY NORTH: Parrish Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS PARRISH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:22-cv-00284 (E.D. Tex., April 4, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff
and similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Mr. Parrish has worked for Frito-Lay since November 2021.
Frito-Lay North America, Inc. is a distributor of foods and snacks
based in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
GENWORTH LIFE: Loses Bid to Enforce Class Settlement in TVPX Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia,
Columbus Division, denied the Defendant's renewed motion to enforce
class settlement and motion for leave to file a counterclaim in the
lawsuit titled TVPX ARS, INC., Plaintiff v. GENWORTH LIFE AND
ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:00-CV-217 (CDL)
(M.D. Ga.).
TVPX filed a putative class action against Genworth Life and
Annuity Insurance Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that Genworth violated the
terms of its life insurance policies by imposing inflated cost of
insurance charges on its insureds. Genworth filed a motion in this
Court to enjoin the Virginia action, arguing that TVPX's claims are
barred by a 2004 agreement settling a prior class action about the
same life insurance policies. The Court initially concluded that
res judicata barred TVPX's Virginia action and granted Genworth's
prior motion to enjoin the Virginia action.
The Eleventh Circuit vacated that order and remanded "for further
factual development of whether Genworth has in any way altered how
it calculates or charges" cost of insurance since the 2004
settlement (TVPX ARS, Inc. v. Genworth Life & Annuity Ins. Co., 959
F.3d 1318, 1329-30 (11th Cir. 2020)).
On remand, the parties conducted discovery relevant to the
resolution of this issue, then Genworth renewed its motion to
enforce class settlement. The key issue remains whether the claims
TVPX seeks to assert in Virginia could have been raised in the
prior action. For the reasons set forth here, the Court finds that
Genworth did not meet its burden to establish that TVPX's Virginia
action is premised on a continuation of the same conduct that was
released in 2004. Accordingly, Genworth's renewed motion to enforce
class settlement is denied, as is its renewed motion for leave to
file a counterclaim.
I. The Original Class Action
In 2000, universal life insurance policyholders filed a putative
class action in this Court against Genworth, then known as Life
Insurance Company of Virginia, alleging breach of contract and
fraud. A universal policy is a type of life insurance that includes
an interest-bearing account that builds cash value during the
insured's life and pays a death benefit when the insured dies.
In their 2000 action ("McBride Action"), the policyholders alleged
that Genworth "wrongfully and improperly" assessed premiums in
amounts higher than the premiums contracted for by the parties by
applying a reduced credited interest rate to the cash value of
policies as interest rates fell over time and by applying an
increased cost of insurance to cash value as policy holders grew
older over time. They also alleged that Genworth did not disclose
cost of insurance, its effect upon premiums or coverage, or that
cost of insurance is determined at the whim or discretion of
Genworth management on a monthly basis. As a result, the
policyholders believed that the premiums would be fixed or
vanishing as Genworth advertised them to be, even though Genworth
knew they were not.
The parties entered a settlement agreement that contained a broad
release. The class members agreed to release "all past, present and
future" causes of action that were "based upon, related to, or
connected with, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part (a) the
allegations, facts, subjects or issues set forth or raised in the
Action or (b) the Released Conduct." They also agreed that they
were "precluded and estopped from bringing any Causes of Action in
the future, related to in any way, directly or indirectly, in whole
or in part (a) the allegations, facts, subjects or issues set forth
or raised in the Action or (b) the Released Conduct, regardless of
whether such Causes of Action accrue after the Agreement is
approved."
The agreement defined "Released Conduct" as including "the design,
development, marketing, sale, suitability, administration,
servicing, modification, underwriting, lapse, termination,
performance, payments, cash values, premiums, cost of insurance
rates and charges, death benefits, coverage, maturity date, policy
loans, replacements, commissions, taxes, surrender charges,
credited interest, expense charges, or other costs of any Class
Policy."
After notice to the class members and an opportunity to opt out,
the Court approved the settlement in the McBride Action. The final
judgment entered in 2004 states that its terms "shall be forever
binding on the Plaintiffs, all other Class Members and all
Releasors, and shall have res judicata and other preclusive effect
in all pending and future claims, lawsuits or other proceedings
maintained by or on behalf of the Plaintiffs, any Class Member or
any Releasor to the extent those claims, lawsuits or other
proceedings involve matters that were or could have been raised in
this Action or are otherwise encompassed by the Release."
II. The TVPX Class Action
TVPX purchased a Genworth flexible premium adjustable life
insurance policy that insured the life of Lucius Whitaker. The
policy, which was part of Genworth's "Contender" line of universal
life insurance products, was originally issued in 1984. Whitaker
held the policy in 2004, was a member of the settlement class, and
did not opt out. TVPX, as Whitaker's successor in interest, is thus
bound by the 2004 release.
TVPX brought a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia. In its amended complaint--the
operative complaint in that action--TVPX alleged that Genworth was
required by the policy to decrease cost of insurance due to
improved expectations of future mortality but has failed to do so,
resulting in cost of insurance rates that exceed what Genworth is
contractually allowed to charge. Genworth contends that TVPX's
Virginia action is barred by res judicata and by the 2004 release.
TVPX argues that is not precluded from pursuing the Virginia action
because its present claims do not share an identical factual
predicate with the claims in the McBride Action.
Discussion
Claim preclusion (also called res judicata) prohibits a party from
re-litigating a claim that was subject to a prior judgment on the
merits.
Here, TVPX's "amended complaint alleges that from 2013 through
2018, Genworth calculated [cost of insurance] in a way not
consistent with mortality expectations." TVPX contends that the
pre-2004 cost of insurance charges were not untethered to mortality
expectations in the same way they are now, which means that TVPX's
Virginia action is not premised on a continuation of the same
conduct that was at issue in the McBride Action.
Having carefully reviewed the present record, the Court finds that
while the claims in the present action allege that Genworth
breached its duty to its insureds because it did not properly take
into consideration mortality factors, which is similar to the
general theory relied upon in the McBride action, the factual
predicate for these claims is different. In the Virginia action,
TVPX relies upon conduct that occurred after the McBride settlement
in support of new claims that could not have been asserted in
McBride because the conduct had not yet occurred and was a
different type of conduct, albeit similar.
Because this new alleged conduct is different in kind and degree
and not a mere continuation of the same previous conduct, TVPX
presents claims in the Virginia action that do not share an
identical factual predicate with the claims in the McBride Action,
nor are they covered by the McBride release, District Judge Clay D.
Land holds.
Accordingly, neither res judicata nor the McBride release precludes
TVPX from asserting these new claims in the Virginia action.
Genworth's motions to enforce the judgment and for leave to file
counterclaim are denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated March 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mwvv3ee9 from Leagle.com.
GEO SECURE: Castillo Labor Code Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JULIE BRITNEY CASTILLO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. GEO SECURE SERVICES, LLC and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. ECU002280, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Imperial, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on
April 4, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00445-MMA-MDD to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all wages due and owed, failure to
provide meal and rest periods, failure to provide meal and rest
period premiums, failure to calculate and pay overtime, failure to
properly reimburse business expenses, failure to provide all
compensation upon termination of employment, and unfair business
practices.
Geo Secure Services, LLC is a provider of security solutions, doing
business in California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Ranen, Esq.
Soojin Kang, Esq.
Eric O. Zeiger, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 250-1800
Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
E-mail: Jeffrey.Ranen@lewisbrisbois.com
Soojin.Kang@lewisbrisbois.com
Eric.Zeiger@lewisbrisbois.com
GEOPARK LIMITED: Faces Suit Over Disputed Oil Exploration Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------
Geopark Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 31, 2022, that in Brazil, GeoPark
Brazil is a party to a class action filed by the Federal
Prosecutor's Office regarding a concession agreement of exploratory
Block PN-T-597, which the Brazilian National Petroleum, Natural Gas
and Biofuels Agency (ANP) initially awarded GeoPark Brazil in the
12th oil and gas bidding round held in November 2013.
The Brazilian Federal Court issued an injunction against the ANP
and GeoPark Brazil in December 2013 that prohibited GeoPark
Brazil's execution of the concession agreement until the ANP
conducted studies on whether drilling for unconventional resources
would contaminate the dams and aquifers in the region.
On July 17, 2015, GeoPark Brazil, at the instruction of the ANP,
signed the concession agreement, which included a clause
prohibiting GeoPark Brazil from conducting unconventional
exploration activity in the area. Despite the clause containing the
prohibition, the judge in the case concluded that the concession
agreement should not be executed. Thus, GeoPark Brazil requested
that the ANP comply with the decision and annul the concession
agreement, which the ANP's Board did on October 9, 2015. The
annulment reverted the status of all parties to the status quo
ante, which maintains GeoPark Brazil's right to the block.
Geopark Limited is into developing and producing oil and gas based
in Bogota, Colombia.
GERBER PRODUCTS: Cullors Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STACIA CULLORS, LAYLA CULLORS, NOELANI CULLORS,
VIVIENNE CULLORS, through their guardian ad litem STACIA CULLORS;
ANTHONY BACANI, DAHLIA BACANI, and ELIAS BACANI, through their
guardian ad litem ANTHONY BACANI; JENNIFER CULLORS, AVA CULLORS,
and JOSHUA CULLORS, through their guardian ad litem JENNIFER
CULLORS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. BEECH-NUT NUTRITION COMPANY; NURTURE, INC.; PLUM, INC., d.b.a.
PLUM ORGANICS; GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY; WALMART, INC.; SPROUT
FOODS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
22STCV07599, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on April 6, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-02324 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged strict product
liability, negligence, negligent product design, negligent
manufacturing, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law and the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act by failing to disclose that their baby
food products contain toxic heavy metals.
Beech-Nut Nutrition Company is a baby food company headquartered in
New York.
Nurture, Inc. is an organic and baby food company headquartered in
New York.
Plum, Inc., doing business as Plum Organics, is an organic and baby
food company based in Emeryville, California.
Gerber Products Company is an American manufacturer of baby food
and baby products headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.
Walmart, Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation based
in Bentonville, Arkansas.
Sprout Foods, Inc. is a baby food company headquartered in New
Jersey. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Bryan A. Merryman, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
555 S. Flower Street, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2433
Telephone: (213) 620-7700
Facsimile: (213) 452-2329
E-mail: bmerryman@whitecase.com
GOLD FIELDS: Faces Suit Over Respiratory Health Issues
-------------------------------------------------------
Gold Fields Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 31, 2022, that a class action was
filed against Gold Fields, alleging that the plaintiffs contracted
silicosis and/or tuberculosis while working for the company.
A consolidated application was brought against several South
African mining companies, including Gold Fields, for certification
of a class action on behalf of current or former mineworkers (and
their dependents) who have allegedly contracted silicosis and/or
tuberculosis while working for one or more of the mining companies
listed in the application.
A settlement agreement in the silicosis and tuberculosis class
action litigation became operational on 10 December 2019. A
settlement trust, known as the Tshiamiso Trust, has been
established to carry out the terms of the settlement agreement and
is responsible for ensuring that all eligible current and former
mineworkers across southern Africa with silicosis or work-related
TB (or their dependents where the mineworker has passed away) are
compensated.
Gold Fields is a producer of gold and a holder of gold reserves and
resources in South Africa, Ghana, Australia and Peru.
GREENIX HOLDINGS: Hutt Seeks Leave to Correct Class Cert Bid Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH HUTT, COLLECTIVE
AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, v. GREENIX HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/A GREENIX OR
GREENIX PEST CONTROL LLC, ET AL., Case No. 2:20-cv-01108-SDM-EPD
(S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
granting him to leave to correct a filing regarding motion for
conditional certification.
The Plaintiff, by mistake, filed a different document as Exhibit 1
instead of the Affidavit. When contacted by counsel about this
error, the Plaintiff emailed the Affidavit to counsel immediately
and agreed to not oppose an extension of time.
The Plaintiff Hutt filed a motion for conditional certification in
this class action/collective case under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. sections 1001 et seq. on February 27, 2022.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 23, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xhERZx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emily J. Lewis, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF EMILY LEWIS, LLC
5650 Blazer Pkwy.
Dublin, OH 43017
Telephone: (614) 734-6270
Facsimile: (614) 734-7270
E-mail: ejl@elewislaw.com
GROSSMONT HOSPITAL: Cranton Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JACQUELYN CRANTON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GROSSMONT HOSPITAL CORPORATION and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2022-00001574-CU-OE-CTL,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on April 4, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00443-JLS-MDD to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code including failure to pay overtime, failure to
provide meal or rest periods or pay premium wages for missed meal
and/or rest periods, the Defendant's defense that the Plaintiff
failed to meet her obligation under the collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) to notify management of anticipated issues with
taking a meal or rest break, failure to pay minimum wage for all
hours worked, failure to provide sick pay, and failure to provide
accurate written wage statements.
Grossmont Hospital Corporation is a healthcare company based in
California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jody A. Landry, Esq.
Krystal N. Weaver, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101-3577
Telephone: (619) 232-0441
Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
E-mail: jlandry@littler.com
kweaver@littler.com
HEIDI WASHINGTON: Court Junks Davis Bid for TRO, Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YanCHRIS DAVIS, v. HEIDI
WASHINGTON et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00129-PLM-MV (W.D. Mich.), the
Hon. Judge Maarten Vermaat entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining
order;
2. denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class; and
3. denying the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel.
A copy of the Court's order dated dated March 23, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O2PtBp at no extra
charge.[CC]
HELION TECHNOLOGIES: Johnson Denied of Liquidated Damages Award
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TYLER JOHNSON, et al. v. HELION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Civil Action No. DKC 18-3276 (D. Md.), Judge Deborah K. Chasanow of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied
liquidated damages award to the Plaintiffs.
After the resolution of dispositive motions involving the four
remaining Plaintiffs in the collective and class action concerning
overtime claims against Helion, the remaining claims came on for
trial before a jury on March 18-28, 2022. The Plaintiffs' claims
that proceeded to trial were based on the Defendant's alleged
overtime violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as
did the additional claims of Plaintiff Toomey for FLSA retaliation
and overtime violations under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law
("MWHL") and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law
("MWPCL"). The parties' outstanding motions in limine, which were
deferred during a pretrial conference, were resolved at trial.
The Court ruled during trial that Mr. Toomey had not produced
sufficient evidence of actual emotional distress damages on his
retaliation claim. Accordingly, he is entitled to nominal damages
of $1 on that claim.
The jury returned verdicts on the overtime claims. It found in
favor of Helion on the FLSA claim of Mr. Carroll, concluding that
Helion had proven that his position was exempt under the Computer
Employee Exemption. It found that the Field Technician position
occupied by the other Plaintiffs was not exempt, and that Helion
failed to pay appropriate overtime, but that the violation was not
willful. It awarded various amounts to each limited to the two year
look back period. It also found that Helion had violated the
parallel state laws and awarded the same amount to Mr. Toomey for
those violations (even though the look back period was three
years), and found that he had not proven bad faith, thus precluding
liquidated damages.
The issue of whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to liquidated
damages under the FLSA in an amount equal to their unpaid wages was
tried to the Court rather than the jury. After the jury retired to
deliberate, the parties presented further argument on the issue.
Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 260, "the court may, in its sound
discretion, award no liquidated damages or award any amount thereof
not to exceed the amount specified in section 216," if "the
employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that its actions
were in good faith and that it had reasonable grounds for believing
that its act or omissions was not a violation" of the FLSA.
Based on the evidence and testimony adduced at trial, and in line
with the findings of the jury, Judge Chasanow declines to award any
liquidated damages. She says, Helion was at all relevant times
aware of its obligations under the FLSA and took reasonable steps,
including consultation with the counsel, to ascertain the
parameters of the exemptions in the computer field. That it was a
little late in reclassifying this position is not enough to
overcome the indicia of good faith.
Although Mr. Toomey brought parallel claims under the FLSA, MWHL,
and MWPCL for unpaid overtime, as noted in Clancy v. Skyline Grill,
LLC, No. ELH-12-1598, 2012 WL 5409733, at *5 (D.Md. Nov. 5, 2012),
report and recommendation adopted, No. ELH-12-1598, 2013 WL 625344
(D.Md. Feb. 19, 2013), "a party may not recover twice for one
injury, even if the party asserts multiple, consistent theories of
recovery." Therefore, he can only recover damages for unpaid wages
once. The jury awarded identical amounts under the FLSA and state
laws, and there will be no liquidated damages awarded under any of
the laws. Mr. Toomey will be awarded a single recovery for unpaid
overtime wages.
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with the
foregoing Memorandum Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8h2vsm from Leagle.com.
HOME SECURITY: Foy FTSA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled CAROLYN FOY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE HOME SECURITY SUPERSTORE, LLC,
Case No. 2022-CA-000834-O, was removed from the Ninth Judicial
Circuit Court in and for Orange County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida on April 6,
2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 6:22-cv-00673-WWB-LHP to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act by sending telephonic sales
calls without obtaining prior express written consent of recipients
including the Plaintiff.
The Home Security Superstore, LLC is a security system supplier
based in Alpharetta, Georgia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Yaniv Adar, Esq.
Josh A. Migdal, Esq.
MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 374-0440
E-mail: josh@markmigdal.com
yaniv@markmigdal.com
eservice@markmigdal.com
ICECURE MEDICAL: Faces Securities Class Suit in Israel
------------------------------------------------------
Icecure Medical Ltd. 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 July 5, 2021, a
class action was filed against it and the members of the Board of
Directors, the controlling shareholder and the investors who took
part in the private placement that was approved by the general
meeting on March 7, 2021.
In the motion, the plaintiff claims, inter alia, that the company
made a private placement of securities to the controlling
shareholder and the investors at a significant discount on the
share price at that time, in which the share price did not reflect
material information that was allegedly in the company's possession
and which was also brought to the attention of the investors, and
that there were alleged defects in the manner of approving the
private placement at the meeting of the company's shareholders.
The plaintiff estimated the amount of his individual claim at a sum
of approximately NIS 30,000 (USD 9,191), the amount of the class
action, insofar as it will be qualified as such, at a sum of
approximately NIS 163,459 (USD 50,079) for the class damages that
the plaintiff claims had their shares diluted unlawfully, and at a
sum of approximately NIS 234,349 (USD 71,798), for damage that was
supposedly caused to the shareholders due to a sale at less than
the full market price.
Icecure Medical is a commercial stage medical device company
focusing on the research, development and marketing of cryoablation
systems and technologies based on liquid nitrogen, or LN2, for
treating tumors.
ICECURE MEDICAL: Faces Securities Suit in Israeli Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Icecure Medical Ltd. 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 July 29, 2021, a
class action was filed against it claiming that the company's
reports filed on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange electronic filing
site, the MAYA Clearing Houses and Nominee Company and on the
Israel Securities Authority electronic filing site, are not in
compliance with applicable accessibility guidelines, and therefore
the company prevents or reduces the access of people with
disabilities to such reports. Said claim is in the amount of NIS
5,000 (USD 1,541).
On March 6, 2022, a hearing was conducted and the companies are
expected to submit a joint response within 45 days.
Icecure Medical is a commercial stage medical device company
focusing on the research, development and marketing of cryoablation
systems and technologies based on liquid nitrogen, or LN2, for
treating tumors.
INCGSGI INC: Bid for Conditional Certification in Vela Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JORGE VELA, Plaintiff v. INCGSGI INC and
DANIEL K. COSTOULAS, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-59-NPM (M.D.
Fla.), Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division,
denied without prejudice the parties' joint stipulation and motion
for conditional certification and a stay pending alternative
dispute resolution.
The parties jointly seek: (1) an order approving the dissemination
of a court-authorized notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs; and
(2) a temporary stay of the proceedings, pending the completion of
alternative dispute resolution.
The parties submitted a proposed notice and a proposed opt-in form.
The proposed forms contemplate that the opt-in plaintiffs would
consent to representation by Plaintiff Vela's counsel, and to Vela
making decisions on the opt-in plaintiff's behalf concerning the
litigation, including the method and manner of conducting this
litigation, entering into settlement agreements, and entering into
an agreement with the Plaintiff's Counsel concerning attorneys'
fees and costs.
Judge Mizell notes that while the proposed notice and opt-in forms
would essentially create the functional equivalent of a class
action, a multi-plaintiff FLSA action is a fundamentally different
creature than the Rule 23 class action. Even if the FLSA plaintiff
can demonstrate that there are other plaintiff's 'similarly
situated' to him, he has no right to represent them. Thus, the
notice and opt-in forms proposed here have been rejected by the
Court.
Accordingly, the joint motion is denied without prejudice. By May
1, 2022, the parties may renew their motion and submit notice and
opt-in forms consistent with the dictates of Gonzalez v. Go Relax
Travel or present argument and authority for why Gonzalez should
not be followed here.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated March 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/26rxevf2 from Leagle.com.
INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INT'L: Romita Securities Suit Settled
----------------------------------------------------------
Intellipharmaceutics International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K
Report for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2022, that on
October 12, 2021, a Canadian Court approved the settlement of an
action brought by Victor Romita, the proposed representative
plaintiff, on behalf of a class of Canadian persons who traded
shares of the company from February 29, 2016 to July 26, 2017.
In February 21, 2019, the company and its CEO, Dr. Isa Odidi, were
served with a Statement of Claim filed in the Superior Court of
Justice of Ontario for a proposed class action under the Ontario
Class Proceedings Act. Said action captioned "Victor Romita v.
Intellipharmaceutics International Inc. and Isa Odidi," asserted
that the defendants knowingly or negligently made certain public
statements during the relevant period that contained or omitted
material facts concerning "Oxycodone ER" abuse-deterrent oxycodone
hydrochloride extended release tablets.
The plaintiff alleges that he and the class suffered loss and
damages as a result of their trading in the company's shares during
the relevant period. The plaintiff seeks, among other remedies,
unspecified damages, legal fees and court and other costs as the
Court may permit. On February 26, 2019, the plaintiff delivered a
Notice of Motion seeking the required approval from the Court, in
accordance with procedure under the Ontario Securities Act, to
allow the statutory claims under the Ontario Securities Act to
proceed with respect to the claims based upon the acquisition or
disposition of the company's shares.
On June 28, 2019, the court endorsed a timetable for the exchange
of material leading to the hearing of the motion scheduled for
January 27-28, 2020. On October 28, 2019, plaintiff's counsel
advised the court that the plaintiff intended to amend his claim
and could not proceed with the Leave Motion scheduled for January
27-28, 2020. As such, the court released those dates. On January
28, 2020 the plaintiff served a Notice of Motion for leave to amend
the Statement of Claim. On April 2, 2020 the plaintiff delivered an
Amended Motion Record and Amended Notice of Motion seeking an order
for leave to issue a fresh as Amended Statement of Claim including
the addition of a Christopher Pearce as a plaintiff. On May 1,
2020, the court granted the plaintiff's Amendment Motion. An order
for leave to proceed for settlement purposes was granted on 25 June
2021.
A tentative settlement has been reached in this case. An order for
leave to proceed for settlement purposes was granted by the judge
on 25 June 2021. At a hearing on 12 October 2021, the court
approved the settlement. The amount of CAD$266,000 provided by the
stipulation of settlement has been paid; CAD$226,000 was paid from
insurance coverage while the Company paid CAD$40,000.
Intellipharmaceutics International Inc. is a pharmaceutical
preparations firm based in Toronto, Canada.
INTELLIRAD IMAGING: Horvat Alleges Unfair Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN I. HORVAT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. INTELLIRAD IMAGING, LLC; RECEIVABLE
MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.; INPHYNET SOUTH BROWARD, LLC; and
HEALTHCAREREVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC d/b/a ACCOUNT RESOLUTION
SERVICES, Defendants, Case No. CACE-22-005081 (Fla. Cir., April 7,
2022) is an action seeking damages against the Defendants for
abusive and illegal medical-debt collection practices.
INTELLIRAD IMAGING, LLC is a diagnostic and interventional
radiology practice located in South Florida. IntelliRad Imaging,
LLC provides multimodality imaging, interventional radiology, and
neurointerventional services for Aventura Hospital, Mercy Hospital,
and Kendall Regional Hospital in Miami, Florida, as well as the
brand new University Hospital in Davie, FL. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
Kimberly A. Slaven, Esq.
ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2900
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 989-6333
Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
Email: jshaw@zpllp.com;
kslaven@zpllp.com
mlomastro@zpllp.com;
-and-
Evan M Rosen, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF EVAN M. ROSEN, P.A.
2719 Hollywood Boulevard, B-224
Hollywood, FL 33020
Telephone: (754) 400-5150
Facsimile: (954) 400-526
Email: erosen@evanmrosen.com
eservice@evanmrosen.com
JACKSONVILLE UNIVERSITY: M.D. Florida Stays Allen Suit Until May 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ASHLEY ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JACKSONVILLE UNIVERSITY,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-178-MMH-LLL (M.D. Fla.), Judge Marcia
Morales Howard of the U.S. District Court or the Middle District of
Florida, Jacksonville Division, granted the Defendant's Motion to
Stay the Case Pending Resolution of Dispositive Motion.
The Court terminates any pending motions and administratively
closes the file until May 31, 2022.
I. Background
In early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic upended daily life. As
infection rates climbed, Jacksonville University (JU) -- a private
university -- moved classes online, closed campus facilities, and
encouraged students to leave their residence halls.
Plaintiff Allen was a JU student at the time. Allen subsequently
sued JU on behalf of all students who paid tuition and fees for the
spring 2020 semester. According to Allen, JU's response to COVID-19
violated various contracts that existed between the school and the
students. She also alleges that JU was unjustly enriched when it
retained the students' tuition and fee payments. Finally, Allen
contends that JU violated Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.
JU moved to dismiss Allen's Amended Complaint on May 14, 2021. On
the same day, JU moved to stay the case pending resolution of the
Motion. It asserts that a stay is warranted because the claims will
likely be dismissed, and a stay will prevent costly discovery.
Allen counters that the routine burdens of discovery do not justify
a stay. She also argues that a stay would prejudice both her and
the putative class by delaying relief.
JU also asked the Court to defer ruling on the Motion to Dismiss
until HB 1261 -- a bill granting broad immunity to educational
institutions -- was presented to the Governor and signed into law.
See Motion to Stay at 11. JU argued that the stay was necessary so
the parties could fully brief the law in connection with this case.
Id. HB 1261 was signed into law on June 29, 2021, and both parties
have fully briefed the issue. In Allen's Supplemental Brief, she
challenges the constitutionality of Florida Statute section 768.39.
Specifically, she argues that section 768.39 violates the Contracts
Clause and the Due Process Clause of the United States
Constitution, and the Contracts Clause and right of access to
courts in the Florida Constitution.
II. Discussion
District courts are vested with broad discretion to stay
proceedings. Pursuant to their authority, district courts may stay
proceedings as a means of managing their dockets. Additionally, in
appropriate circumstances, courts may enter a stay to promote
judicial economy, reduce confusion and prejudice, and prevent
possibly inconsistent resolutions. So long as the scope of a stay
is limited and a reasonable justification is provided, courts do
not abuse their discretion by granting a stay.
Judge Howard holds that she need not address the arguments
presented by the parties in favor and in opposition of a stay
because she finds that the procedural posture of the case warrants
a stay. Notably, Rule 5.1(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, requires a party "drawing into question the
constitutionality of a state statute" to "promptly" file a notice
of the constitutional question and identify the paper that raises
the question. The party must then serve the notice on the state
attorney general. The Court is also obligated to certify the
constitutional question to the state attorney general. After the
notice is filed or certification is made, whichever is earlier, the
attorney general has sixty days to intervene and present "arguments
on the question of constitutionality." During the 60-day period,
the Court "may not enter a final judgment holding the statute
unconstitutional."
In the months following the filing of Allen's Supplemental Brief in
which she challenges the constitutionality of Florida Statute
section 768.39, Judge Howard finds that Allen failed to file a
notice of the constitutional question with the Court, as required
by Rule 5.1(a)(1). She also failed to give notice to Florida's
Attorney General as required by Rule 5.1(a)(2). As a consequence of
Allen's failure to comply with her obligations under Rule 5.1(a),
the Court's obligation under Rule 5.1(b) remains outstanding.
On March 22, 2022, the Court brought this issue to the parties'
attention. According to Allen, one day later, she provided the
Attorney General notice pursuant to Rule 5.1(a)(2). And by her
Order, Judge Howard discharges the Court's notice obligation
pursuant to Rule 5.1(b). As such, the Florida Attorney General now
has at least 60 days to decide whether to intervene and present
arguments on the constitutionality of Florida Statute section
768.39.
In light of the need to provide the Attorney general at least 60
days to determine whether she wishes to intervene in the action,
Judge Howard finds that a stay is justified. As such, she will
grant the Motion to Stay, albeit for reasons other than those urged
by JU. A stay in the case is necessary and proper to comply with
the requirements of Rule 5.1 and 28 U.S.C. Section 2403.
III. Order
Accordingly, Judge Howard granted Defendant JU's Motion to Stay.
All proceedings in the matter are stayed until May 31, 2022,
pending the possible intervention of the Florida Attorney General.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1(b) and 28 U.S.C. Section 2403, the
Florida Attorney General is granted leave to intervene in thie
action for purposes of presenting evidence and argument on the
constitutional question. By May 31, 2022, the Attorney General will
notify the Court by appropriate filing whether it intends to
intervene. The Court advises the Attorney General that after May
31, 2022, the Court will not delay the case while waiting for
intervention.
Judge Howard certified to the Attorney General for the State of
Florida, Ashley Moody, that the constitutionality of Florida
Statute section 768.39 has been challenged.
The Clerk of Court is directed to immediately transmit Allen's
Notice, along with copies of JU's Supplemental Brief, Allen's
Supplemental Brief, and JU's Reply to Florida Attorney General
Ashley Moody, by certified mail, return receipt requested, at the
Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, PL-01 The
Capitol, Tallahassee, Fl. 32399-1050.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate any pending motions and
administratively close the file until May 31, 2022.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/bdeem2nw from Leagle.com.
JDM WASHINGTON: Court Grants Vignola Leave to Amend Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHAD VIGNOLA, Plaintiff v. JDM WASHINGTON STREET LLC,
Defendant, Index No. 152025/2020 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Sabrina Kraus
of the Supreme Court of New York County granted the Plaintiff's
motion for leave to amend the complaint.
I. Background
JDM Washington is the owner in fee of the apartment building
located at 90 Washington Street in Manhattan. Until June 2016, the
Building received certain tax abatements and/or exemptions pursuant
to the 421-g tax benefits program, and as such was required to
provide its tenants with rent-stabilized leases as a condition of
receiving the tax benefits. The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant failed to do that and has forced tenants in the building
to switch apartments in attempt to avoid compliance with the
applicable rent regulatory scheme.
II. Pending Motions
On Oct. 29, 2021, the Plaintiff moved by order to show cause for an
order:
(a) pursuant to, inter alia, CPLR 6301, et seq., enjoining the
Defendant from taking further steps to terminate the tenancies of
Louiza Chirinian and Chris Kanarick at the Building; and
(b) pursuant to, inter alia, CPLR 6301, et seq., enjoining the
Defendant from taking further steps to terminate the tenancies of
any other class members' until such time as the class members are
provided with a Court-approved notice of this action, and advised
to seek legal counsel; and
(c) pursuant to, inter alia, CPLR 904 directing defendant to
provide a current rent roll for the Building, so that the
Court-approved notice of the action can be distributed.
On Jan. 5, 2022, the Plaintiff moved for leave to amend their
complaint. Both motions have been fully briefed and are
consolidated for determination.
III. Alleged Facts
On Jan. 1, 2010, the Plaintiff leased Apartment 7A in the Building.
The Plaintiff did not receive a rent stabilized lease at the time
he moved into his apartment and was provided with non-rent
stabilized lease renewals. His apartment was not registered with
DHCR, and was, in fact, listed as exempt from rent stabilization.
The Plaintiff did not receive any of the riders required by the
421-g Program for his unit. Additionally, he submits the affidavit
of Louiza Chirinian (LC) another tenant at the building. LC is also
a tenant at the Building. LC first moved into Apartment 8N at the
Building in October 2016.
On Nov. 1, 2017, LC renewed her lease for Apartment 8N for one
year. On Nov. 1, 2018, LC renewed her lease for an additional year.
When that lease expired, the Defendant insisted that LC either
transfer the apartment, or vacate my unit. It did not inform LC
that Apartment 8N was rent stabilized at the time they forced her
to transfer or vacate. LC transferred to Apartment 18D. The
Defendant provided LC with a lease renewal for Apartment 18D. On
Sept. 3, 2021, LC signed a lease renewal for Apartment 18D. After
LC provided that renewal to the Defendant, LC received an email
rejecting the submitted renewal and demanding that LC must vacate
by Oct. 31, 2021. The Defendant subsequently issued LC a predicate
notice for a summary eviction proceeding. LC does not wish to
vacate her apartment.
The Plaintiff also submitted an affidavit from Chris Kanarik (CK).
CK first occupied Apartment 17C at the Building in November 2015.
CK subsequently renewed his lease through October 2018, when he
signed a one-year lease. When that lease expired, the Defendant
insisted that CK either transfer to a different apartment or vacate
his unit. It did not inform him that Apartment 17C was rent
stabilized at the time they forced him to transfer or vacate. CK
transferred to Apartment 24H. On Aug. 25, 2021, CK was advised that
the Defendant intended to offer him a lease renewal, and that that
lease renewal would be provided in seven days. On Aug. 31, 2021, CK
received an email advising that the Defendant would not be renewing
his lease and demanding that CK vacate his apartment. CK
subsequently received a lease renewal, increasing his rent by 29%.
That renewal specifically advised that CK's apartment was not
subject to rent regulation. CK does not wish to vacate his
apartment.
Colleen Tripp (CT) is a tenant in Apartment PHD at 90 Washington
Street, pursuant to a lease that expired in February 2020. The
Defendant advised CT that in order to remain in the Building after
her lease expiration, she needed to switch apartments with Benjamin
Davis (BD), the tenant of record of Apartment PHA. CT subsequently
signed a lease for Apartment PHA, and believes BD signed a lease
for Apartment PHD. The transfers were to be effectuated in March
2020, but defendant cancelled them due to COVID-19. They have never
been rescheduled. Since that time, CT has repeatedly asked
defendant how much she should pay in rent but received no response.
CT paid the rent amount for PHA, which until recently defendant
accepted without protest. The Defendant has commenced summary
eviction proceeding against CT under Index Number LT 301675/2022.
CT seeks permission to be named as a plaintiff in the action.
IV. Discussion
A. Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Complaint Is Granted
The Plaintiff alleges that after the Court of Appeals issued its
decision in Kuzmich v 50 Murray Street (34 N.Y.3d 84 [2019])
holding that tenants in buildings participating in the 421-g
Program are entitled to the benefits of rent stabilization, the
Defendant required its tenants to switch apartments in an attempt
to deprive them of their rights under Rent Stabilization. The
Plaintiff further alleges that at the time he filed his complaint
he was unaware of the Defendant's widespread use of forced
transfers to deprive tenants of their rights.
While the Defendant opposes the motion, the Defendant points to no
prejudice it will suffer as a result of the amendment. The
Defendant alleges procedurally improprieties and a lack of
standing. It alleges each of these Defendants should be required to
make an individual motion to intervene pursuant to CPLR Section
1013.
Judge Kraus holds that the Defendant's argument that motion is
defective because it is not supported by affidavits relying on
Arriaga v Michael Laub Co. (233 A.D.2d 244 [1st Dept 1996), is
misplaced. Affidavits are no longer required, as held by the
Appellate Division in Boliak v Reilly, 161 A.D.3d 625, 625 [1st
Dept 2018], the "Plaintiffs were not required to submit an
affidavit of merit or make any other evidentiary showing in support
of their motion for leave to amend."
Based on the foregoing, the motion to amend the complaint is
granted.
B. Plaintiffs' Motion for an Injunction Is Granted
On Feb. 25, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated current and
former residents at 90 Washington Street. As demonstrated by the
affidavits of LC and CK, the Defendant is taking steps to terminate
their tenancies, and it is reasonable to assume the tenancies of
other similarly situated tenants.
To obtain a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs must establish (1) a
likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the equities favor the
movant, and (3) irreparable harm if such injunction were not
granted.
Judge Kraus holds that the Plaintiff has met its burden in showing
a likelihood of success on the merits, given the Defendant's
participation in the 421-g program, its is likely that the class
members' respective apartments are subject to rent stabilization,
indeed this point is not really contested by the Defendants who
again rely primarily on alleged procedural defects in seeking to
oppose the motion.
Given the Defendant's attempts to drive tenants from the Building,
it is just, proper, equitable, and fundamentally necessary for
their protection, that tenants be advised of the action's
existence, their potential for rent-stabilized leases at reduced
rates, and their right to contact counsel, to the extent that this
has not already taken place. The opposition submitted by the
Defendant does not warrant a different conclusion.
Finally, the Defendant's reliance on Cox v JD realty Associates
(217 A.D.2d 179) for the proposition that it would be inappropriate
for the Court to enjoin a potential future termination of tenancy
and eviction proceeding is misplaced. In that action the landlord
essentially tried to bring a nonprimary residence holdover
proceeding as a declaratory action in Supreme Court. In the case at
bar the Plaintiff seeks relief unavailable in Housing Court
including injunctive and declaratory relief.
V. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to
amend the complaint, and the amended complaint in the proposed form
annexed to the moving papers will be deemed served upon service of
a copy of the Order with notice of entry thereof.
The Defendant will serve an answer to the amended complaint or
otherwise respond thereto within 20 days from the date of said
service.
The action will bear the following caption: "CHAD VIGNOLA, LOUIZA
CHIRINIAN, BENJAMIN DAVIS, COLLEEN TRIPP, VINEET DUTTA, and
CHRISTOPHER KANARICK on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- JDM WASHINGTON STREET LLC
Defendant."
The counsel for the Plaintiff will serve a copy of this order with
notice of entry upon the County Clerk and the Clerk of the General
Clerk's Office, who are directed to mark the Court's records to
reflect the parties being added pursuant thereto.
Pursuant to CPLR 6301, et seq., JDM Washington Street, LLC and/or
its affiliates, agents, attorneys, employees and anyone acting on
their behalf, or under their control, are enjoined from taking
further steps to terminate or to threaten to terminate the
tenancies of Louiza Chirinian, Chris Kanarick, Benjamin Davis,
Colleen Tripp and Vineet Dutta at 90 Washington Street.
Pursuant to CPLR 6301, et seq., JDM Washington Street, LLC and/or
its affiliates, agents, attorneys, employees, and anyone acting on
their behalf, or under their control, are enjoined from taking
further steps to terminate or to threaten to terminate the
tenancies of any other class members' units, minimally until such
time as class members are provided with a Court-approved notice of
the action, and advised to seek legal counsel.
Pursuant to CPLR Section 904 JDM Washington Street LLC is directed
to provide the Plaintiffs with a current rent roll for the
Building, so that the Court-approved notice of this action can be
distributed.
The counsel are directed to appear for a virtual status conference
in Room on June 3, 2022, at 12:00 p.m.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8mebuu from Leagle.com.
JSG BABYFOOD: Baby Food Products Contain Toxic Metals, Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett at topclassactions.com reports that JSG Babyfood LLC
misled consumers by marketing and selling Holle and Holle Organic
brand baby food products containing toxic heavy metals, a new class
action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Maria del Carmen Vasquez de Maldonado claims JSG neither
lists heavy metals in the ingredients of its baby food products nor
warns consumers about the potential presence of them. She also
claims that, rather than be honest about the presence of heavy
metals in its baby food products, JSG instead advertises on its
website that its baby foods are "Lead Free" and have "No detectable
traces of heavy metals."
The presence of heavy metals in JSG's baby food products was
discovered in December after laboratory testing ordered by the New
York State Attorney General's Office, according to the class action
lawsuit.
Holle Baby Food Test Shows All Samples Test Positive for Heavy
Metals
Vasquez de Maldonado claims all 18 of the Holle baby food samples
tested came back positive for containing various levels of heavy
metals, including cadmium, lead, mercury and arsenic.
"Not a single sample from Defendant did not contain heavy metals,"
the class action lawsuit states.
In response to the findings, the New York State Attorney General's
Office told JSG that it should remove claims from its website and
marketing materials that its products don't contain any heavy
metals.
Vasquez de Maldonado claims JSG knowingly misled consumers about
the presence of heavy metals in its baby food products since it
knew they would be "unwilling to purchase baby food that contains
toxic heavy metals."
"Defendant capitalized on Plaintiff and Class Members' desire to
purchase baby food that was safe and healthy for the infants and
children," the class action lawsuit states.
Vasquez de Maldonado claims JSG is guilty of breach of express
warranty, fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment and in
violation of New York General Business Law.
Plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting injunctive
relief along with monetary, statutory, treble and punitive damages
for herself and all class members.
Vasquez de Maldonado wants to represent a nationwide class and New
York subclass of consumers who purchased Holle and Holle Organic
brand baby food products contaminated with toxic heavy metals.
A similar class action lawsuit was filed in January against Plum
Organics over claims the baby food manufacturer failed to disclose
that its products contained high levels of toxic heavy metals.
You may qualify for a lawsuit claim review under the following
circumstances if you have a child who consumed baby foods
contaminated with toxic metals and was diagnosed with Autism,
another neurological disorder or a cognitive deficiency (links to
paid attorney content).
The plaintiff is represented by Jason P. Sultzer, Joseph Lipari and
Daniel Markowitz of The Sultzer Law Group P.C.; David C. Magagna
Jr. and Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman; and Jeffrey
K. Brown of Leeds Brown Law, P.C.
The Holle Baby Food Toxic Heavy Metals Class Action Lawsuit is
Vasquez de Maldonado v. JSG Babyfood LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01920,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
[GN]
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Whitley County Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHITLEY COUNTY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02169 (N.D. Cal., April 6, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Whitley County Consolidated Schools is a public school district
with its offices located on North Walnut Street in Columbia City,
Indiana.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
JUUL LABS: Garrett-Keyser-Butler Sues Over Youth Health Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT-KEYSER-BUTLER COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS,
INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS
PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA
CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP
MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02165 (N.D. Cal.,
April 6, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Indiana Public
Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Garrett-Keyser-Butler Community School District is a public school
district with its offices located on Houston Street in Garrett,
Indiana.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
JUUL LABS: Kankakee Valley Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------
KANKAKEE VALLEY SCHOOL CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02168-WHO (N.D. Cal., April 6, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Kankakee Valley School Corporation is a public school district with
its offices located in Wheatfield, Indiana.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM: Agrees to Pay $2.5-M Settlement in Toll Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that two toll companies agreed to pay
$2.5 million to resolve claims they unfairly charged fees on unpaid
tolls for the RiverLink toll bridges in Indiana and Kentucky.
The settlement benefits individuals who paid fees or penalties on
tolls related to use of the RiverLink toll bridges and were not
refunded before Feb. 7, 2022. Eligible fees would have been
assessed after Class Members failed to pay a first toll notice,
second toll notice, and/or violation notice that was not printed
and mailed.
RiverLink toll bridges allow traffic to cross the Ohio River
between Louisville, Kentucky, and southern Indiana. Three bridges
connect the two states, allowing drivers to cross the river in
exchange for a toll.
According to a class action lawsuit, RiverLink operators Kapsch
TrafficCom USA Inc. and Gila Inc. violate the law by charging late
fees on unpaid tolls after only 29 days or fewer. Plaintiffs in the
case say the RiverLink business terms are supposed to allow 35 days
for payment - five days for invoice generation and mailing and 30
days for a customer to make payments.
As a result of this failure, drivers were allegedly charged unfair
late fees on unpaid tolls before their payments should have been
considered late.
"Defendants have inappropriately charged motorists penalties as
part of a scheme with the intent to defraud and mislead," the
RiverLink class action lawsuit contends.
Kapsch and Gila haven't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to
settle these claims with a $2.5 million settlement deal.
Under the settlement terms, Class Members will receive a cash
payment. This payment will vary depending on the amount each Class
Member paid in toll fees. Class Members who paid more in toll fees
will be allotted a larger share of the settlement fund. No payment
estimates are available on the settlement website.
Both defendants also agreed to make changes to their toll fee
processes to avoid future unfair fees. This serves as injunctive
relief in the settlement deal.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 23, 2022.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for June
22, 2022.
Class Members do not have to file a claim form in order to benefit
from the settlement. They will automatically receive payments
without needing to take any action.
However, Class Members may elect to receive their payment through
PayPal or Zelle by submitting a request through the settlement
website.
Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits individuals who paid fees or penalties on
tolls related to use of the RiverLink toll bridges and were not
refunded before Feb. 7, 2022. Eligible fees would have been
assessed after Class Members failed to pay a first toll notice,
second toll notice, and/or violation notice that was not printed
and mailed.
No proof of purchase applicable
Payment Selection
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Exclusion or Objection Deadline
05/23/2022
Case Name
Outzen et al. v. Kapsch TrafficCom USA Inc. et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-01286-TWP-MJD, in the U.S. District Court Southern District
of Indiana Indianapolis Division
Final Hearing
06/22/2022
Settlement Website
RiverLinkSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Riverlink Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 43518
Providence, RI 02940-3518
855-909-0735
Class Counsel
William Winingham
Jon Noyes
WILSON KEHOE & WININGHAM LLC
Jacob Cox
COX LAW OFFICE
Defense Counsel
Gregg Bott
General Counsel
GILA LLC [GN]
KELLER WILLIAMS: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HAYHURST,
individually on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KELLER
WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00657-NCT-JEP (M.D.N.C.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extendng the time to
file and serve a Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification in this action 28 days through and including
May 2, 2022.
Keller Williams is an American technology and international real
estate franchise with headquarters in Austin, Texas. It claimed to
be the largest real estate franchise in number of agents and sales
volume for 2018 and 2019. It is operated by a holding company named
KWx which was formed in 2020.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 23, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jqUJ3R at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Todd P. Stelter, Esq.
John P. Ryan, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
151 North Franklin Street, Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60606
E-mail: tstelter@hinshawlaw.com
jryan@hinshawlaw.com
- and -
Caren D. Enloe, Esq.
SMITH DEBNAM NARRON DRAKE
SAINTSING & MYERS LLP
NC State Bar No. 17394
P.O. Box 176010
Raleigh, NC 27619-6010
Telephone: (919) 250-2000
Facsimile: (919) 250-2124
KISLING NESTICO: Appeals Court OKs Class-Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Cory Shaffer at cleveland.com reports that an appeals court has
ruled that a key portion of a class-action lawsuit against the
Akron-based personal injury law firm Kisling, Nestico and Redick
can proceed.
A three-judge panel of the Ninth District Ohio Court of Appeals
last week unanimously upheld a lower court's decision that grants
class-certification to former clients whom the law firm charged a
$50 fee for investigative services that attorneys suing the firm
say were never provided.
The firm's representatives said in depositions and affidavits that
the fee could apply to as many as 45,000 clients dating back to
2008.
The appellate panel, however, reversed a decision granting
class-action status to a claim that the law firm funneled clients
to Wadsworth chiropractor Sam Ghoubrial, who is accused of
overbilling those patients to inflate settlements. The appellate
panel sent the issue back to the trial judge for further
examination.
Peter Pattakos, the lead attorney for the five former clients of
the firm who filed the lawsuit in September 2016, said in a
statement that the opinion is "clear, comprehensive and
well-reasoned."
"The [appellate court's] ruling ensures that these claims will be
litigated fully, fairly, efficiently, in accord with Ohio law and
bolsters our confidence that the affected clients will recover the
fees that KNR and Dr. Ghoubrial wrongly charged them," Pattakos
said.
Jim Popson, the lead attorney defending the law firm against the
suit, said in a statement that it continues to dispute the issue of
the investigative fee.
"As for the claim relating to a $50 investigator fee paid to third
parties for work performed, while the Court of Appeals found the
allegations suitable for a class action, there has been no finding
of liability against KNR on the merits of that claim, which KNR
continues to dispute," Popson wrote. "KNR reserves its right to
appeal that portion of the ruling."
The ruling comes nearly six years after the lawsuit accusing the
firm of fraudulent billing practices and unjust enrichment was
first filed in Summit County Common Pleas Court.
James Brogan is a retired Dayton-area appellate court judge tapped
to oversee the lawsuit after the Summit County judges recused
themselves. In December 2019, he granted class-action status based
on two claims in the lawsuit.
In a 56-page ruling, Brogan held that the investigation fee the law
firm charged nearly all of its clients was essentially no more than
an "ambulance-chasing fee" used to pay third-party investigators to
visit and sign-up future clients.
Brogan also found that evidence produced through depositions and
pre-trial discovery showed that Ghoubrial "substantially
overcharged his patients" who were also law firm clients, and it
should at least be a question for a jury to decide if the law firm
was aware of the high prices.
Brogan did not grant class-action status to a claim in the lawsuit
that the firm provided kick-backs to doctors in exchange for
writing narrative reports about patients' care.
Brogan found that the law firm charged nearly all of its clients a
$50 fee for "investigative services" that it used to pay
investigators from two private companies, regardless of the amount
of investigating that each case required.
The plaintiffs argued that the investigators, who had offices in
the law firm's properties and used computer tablets that the firm
provided, did little more than contacting people who were recently
in car accidents and convinced them to hire the firm to seek a
personal injury settlement.
The law firm did not keep any accounting or log of the actual
services that the investigators provided to each client in exchange
for the fee, the order said.
The appellate court held that, because the plaintiff's allegation
was that the fee was an across-the-board fraud, people who were
charged the fee qualify as a class and can seek reimbursement from
the firm.
Ghoubrial, who made more than $8 million from the law firm's
clients, refused to accept insurance from the firm's clients and
charged them anywhere from $400 to $1,000 for a series of pain
injections that other clinics offered for far cheaper, the lawsuit
says.
"It is clear that payments made to Dr. Ghoubrial in this manner
insured the charges he made would escape scrutiny by the insurance
carriers and other government agencies," Brogan wrote.[GN]
KSK PRIVATE LABEL: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ksk Private Label
Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Ksk Private
Label Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02902 (S.D.N.Y., April 7,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ksk Private Label Holdings, Inc. is located in Las Vegas, Nevada
and is part of the Clothing Stores Industry.[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
LA BORING LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Carr Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JASON CARR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LA BORING, LLC, Defendant, Case
6:22-cv-00133 (E.D. Tex., April 8, 2022) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Carr was employed by the Defendant as ground hand.
LA BORING, LLC is a freight shipping Trucking Company from
Longview, TX. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
Email: rprieto@eeoc.net
marbuckle@eeoc.net
LA RUANA BAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hernandez Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LA RUANA BAR, INC., d/b/a LA RUANA
PAULA SEVILLANO; and CHRISTINA SEVILLANO, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-01998 (E.D.N.Y., April 7, 2022) is an action against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
and provide accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Hernandez was employed by the Defendant as cook.
LA RUANA BAR, INC. operate as a restaurant serving traditional
Colombian food. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 1700
New York, N.Y. 10007
Telephone: (646) 741-3490
LAIRD SUPERFOOD: Gwinn Files Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Laird Superfood, Inc.
The case is styled as Lovelynn Gwinn, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Laird Superfood, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02883-VSB (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2022).
The nature of suit is stared as Other Fraud.
Laird Superfood -- https://lairdsuperfood.com/ -- offers coffee
creamers and premium organic coffee that is an alternative to
traditional sports drinks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Abiri, Esq.
CUSTODIO & DUBEY LLP
445 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2520
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 593-9095
Email: abiri@cd-lawyers.com
LEPRINO FOODS: Howell's Certification Bid Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW HOWELL, on behalf
of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation;
LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; and
DOES 1–50, inclusive, Case No. 1:18-cv-01404-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.),
the Court entered an order that:
1. Howell's certification motion is granted in part and
denied in part as follows:
a. Howell's late lunch breaks claim is not certified for
class aggregation under Rule 23;
b. Howell's on-call breaks claim is CERTIFIED for class
aggregation under Rule 23(b)(3);
c. The class is defined as follows:
"All non-exempt hourly workers who are currently
employees, or formerly have been employed, as non-
exempt hourly employees at Leprino's Tracy plant in
Tracy, California, at any time within four years prior
to the filing of the original complaint until the date
the Court grants certification;"
d. Andrew Howell is appointed as the class representative.
e. The Parris Law Firm and The Downey Law Firm are
appointed as class counsel;
2. Leprino's Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 93) is DENIED;
3. The parties must promptly meet and confer about the
submission of a joint stipulated class notice and
distribution plan. Within 21 days of this order, the
parties must FILE either a stipulated class notice and
distribution plan or a notice that no stipulation can be
agreed to. If the parties cannot agree to a class notice
or distribution plan, then Howell must FILE a proposed
class notice and distribution plan within 35 days of this
order, and Leprino shall have 14 days following Howell's
filing to file any objections, and Howell shall have seven
days following Leprino's filing to FILE a reply; and
3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate
judge for further scheduling and other proceedings
consistent with this order.
The Court said, "Howell argues that class treatment is superior,
and Leprino does not substantively address the issue in opposition.
The Court finds the Rule 23(b)(3) factors weigh in favor of
certification. There is no indication of putative class members
wanting to individually control the prosecution of separate
actions. Nor is there indication of other actions raising the same
issues based on the same facts pertaining to Leprino's Tracy
facility. There is also no indication here that managing this
action as a class action would be unmanageable. To the contrary,
these claims seem particularly apt for class adjudication through
use of records and data in Leprino's possession. Finally, class
litigation is superior here, as it often is in wage-and-hour
lawsuits, because "the individual damages of each employee are too
small to make litigation costs effective"."
Mr. Howell filed suit against two cheese manufacturing companies,
Leprino Foods Company and Leprino Foods Dairy Products Company,
alleging that Leprino violated California wage-and-hour laws by
enforcing policies and practices that are facially unlawful and
that deprive hourly employees of timely and compliant meal and rest
periods. Howell worked as an hourly employee for Leprino from
August 1987 to March 2015.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Oez5Oq at no extra charge.[CC]
LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Aley Files TCPA Suit in N.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lightfire Partners,
LLC. The case is styled as Rhonda Aley, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. Lightfire Partners, LLC, Case No.
5:22-cv-00330-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., April 7, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
LightFire Partners -- https://lightfirepartners.com/ -- is a
full-service, direct response, business-to-consumer advertising
agency that specializes in lead generation, lead management and
sales support for the home services industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
BELLIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
50 Main Street, Suite 1000
White Plains, NY 10606
Phone: (914) 358-5345
Fax: (212) 571-0284
Email: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Faces Stinson Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN L. STINSON, JR., SHARIKA HORTON, NATHANIEL RAY JOHNSON, HELEN
MARIE SCHLUETER, individually and behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01342-TWT (N.D. Ga., April 6, 2022) is
a collective action complaint against the Defendant seeking to
recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
According to the complaint, throughout the Plaintiffs' many years
of employment with Defendant Lockheed Martin, Plaintiffs were
regularly scheduled to work more than 40 hours a week. Under their
typical schedule, the Plaintiffs work a three-week rotating
scheduling. In this three-week rotation, Plaintiffs work 48 a week
for two weeks and then work a 72 week on the third week. However,
the Defendant has failed to pay them for all overtime compensation
to which they are entitled under the FLSA, the complaint asserts.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as firefighters.
Lockheed Martin is a private for-profit entity that maintains a
fire department for use at its facility in Marietta, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas R. Kertscher, Esq.
Julie H. Burke, Esq.
HILL, KERTSCHER & WHARTON, LLP
3625 Cumberland Blvd. Suite 1050
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (770) 953-0995
Facsimile: (770) 953-1358
E-mail: drk@hkw-law.com
jb@hkw-law.com
MASONITE CORPORATION: Fails to Provide OT Wages, Blakley Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
KENESHIA BLAKLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MASONITE CORPORATION; and MASONITE
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-00819 (M.D.
Fla., April 6, 2022) is an action against the Defendant's failure
to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Blakley was employed by the Defendant as staff.
MASONITE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION operates as a holding company.
The Company, through its subsidiary, manufactures residential and
commercial doors. Masonite offers interior, entry, and patio doors
through a network of local dealers and home improvement retailers.
Masonite International serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3383
Email: kimd@forthepeople.com
rmorgan@forthepeople.com
MEDINA CREATIVE: Ohio Court Approves Settlement in Kelly FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BARBARA KELLY, Plaintiff v. MEDINA CREATIVE HOUSING,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01452 (N.D. Ohio), Judge James S. Gwin
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
approved the parties' proposed settlement agreement.
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Kelly sued her former employer for failing to pay
overtime and keep work hours records in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA). The parties reached a settlement. Now, the
parties ask the Court to approve their proposed settlement
agreement.
II. Background
Plaintiff Kelly worked for Defendant Medina Creative Housing from
January 2020 to May 2021. Medina Creative Housing is a non-profit
organization that also operates "retail and recreational
establishments which are open to the public."
The Defendant initially hired the Plaintiff as a marketing
director, then transferred her to work at its Grand Cafe and
Roastery. The Plaintiff alleges that she was misclassified as an
independent contractor in the marketing director role and
misclassified as an exempt employee in the cafe role.
After resigning, Plaintiff Kelly sued Defendant Medina Creative
Housing under FLSA. She alleged that the Defendant did not pay her
overtime and failed to keep required records of her work hours.
The Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the
Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege that FLSA applied to the
Defendant through enterprise coverage or to her through individual
coverage.
The Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that
the Plaintiff sufficiently alleged FLSA coverage at the pleadings
stage.
The parties verbally agreed to settle the case during a January
2022 status conference with the Court.
The Court approved the parties' joint motion to file their motion
for settlement approval and proposed settlement agreement under
seal. The parties are settling an individual employee's suit rather
than a class action settlement, several factors from the
seven-factor test do not apply.
Under the proposed agreement, the Plaintiff will recover over 80%
of her alleged unpaid overtime wages. The parties completed initial
discovery and reviewed the Plaintiff's time records. Unlike a class
action settlement, the agreement will not bind other employees.
The Plaintiffs' counsel states that the counsel reduced their fees
($10,000 fee for the 46.5 hours spent on the case) by just over 50%
in order to resolve the case.
III. Discussion
Judge Gwin finds that (i) the parties have a bona fide dispute;
(ii) the parties reached a fair and reasonable settlement; (iii)
the proposed attorneys' fees are reasonable; and (iv) the unique
circumstances in the case justify approving the confidentiality
term in the settlement agreement.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gwin approved the proposed
settlement agreement.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mkddv3p2 from Leagle.com.
MENOLABS LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Menolabs, LLC. The
case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Menolabs, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02912
(S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
MenoLabs -- https://menolabs.com/ --- was founded to fundamentally
change how menopause is addressed.[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
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Wins Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Hamm Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERRY HAMM, et al., Plaintiffs v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-03370-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, issued an order:
(1) granting the Defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings; and
(2) denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for partial
reconsideration of the Court's order denying class
certification.
I. Introduction
In the putative class action, Plaintiff Hamm alleges that Defendant
Mercedes-Benz USA ("MBUSA") knew of and actively concealed defects
in vehicle transmission systems. Presently before the Court are (1)
the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and (2) the
Plaintiff's motion for partial reconsideration of the Court's order
denying class certification.
II. Background
The Plaintiff is an owner of a Mercedes-Benz vehicle equipped with
an allegedly defective automatic transmission known as the 722.9
7G-Tronic transmission. He purchased his used Mercedes-Benz 2006
CLK350 vehicle in December 2012 from Stevens Creek Toyota in San
Jose, California, and is the fourth owner. The alleged transmission
defect typically manifests itself outside the 4 year/50,000 mile
duration of MBUSA's New Vehicle Limited Warranty. The alleged
defect causes Mercedes-Benz vehicles with the 722.9 transmission to
enter "limp mode" in which their vehicles cannot shift or
accelerate. The laintiff's transmission failed by exhibiting the
defect at issue. He paid over $1000 for a replacement of the
transmission's conductor plate and reprogramming of its valve body.
The Plaintiff asserts claims under California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA") and Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").
III. Discussion
Under Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir.
2020), Judge Davilla holds that the Plaintiff's claims for
equitable relief fail as a matter of law because he does not and
cannot plead facts showing he lacks an adequate remedy at law. He
says, the Plaintiff's SAC does not allege facts showing he lacks an
adequate remedy at law.
Despite the explicit reference to monetary damages, the Plaintiff
contends that the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings
should be denied for essentially two reasons. First, he argues that
Sonner is inapplicable because unlike in Sonner, he seeks "CLRA
money damages for a different and separate injury and in a
different form and amount than the equitable redress he seeks in
the form of injunctive, declaratory and restitutionary relief under
the UCL."
Judge Davilla holds that the SAC indicates otherwise. As pled, both
the CLRA and UCL claims seek redress in the form of (1) Plaintiff's
out-of-pocket expenses for the repair of his vehicle and/or (2) the
diminution in value of his vehicle. Thus, the availability of an
adequate legal remedy is clear from the face of the SAC and
dictates dismissal of the UCL claim.
The Plaintiff next contends that the repair costs are compensable
only as equitable restitution, but the caselaw is to the contrary.
Courts routinely characterize out-of-pocket repair costs as damages
in cases involving automotive defects. Even if the Plaintiff is
correct that repair costs are unavailable as damages for his CLRA
claim, he has not shown that monetary damages for diminished value
or benefit-of-the-bargain losses would be an inadequate remedy at
law for him.
The Plaintiff also contends that the injunctive relief he seeks
under the UCL is separate and distinct from remedies at law.
Specifically, he seeks declaratory relief and an injunction forcing
the Defendant to acknowledge the alleged defect, which he contends
will trigger the Defendant's obligations under its new Vehicle
Limited Warranty to replace at its expense the defective parts, and
may trigger a safety recall under federal law.
This argument has been rejected by several courts, Judge Davilla
says. Further, the Plaintiff has not alleged facts to show he has
standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief. More
specifically, he has not alleged facts to show he is threatened by
repetition of Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct.
Lastly, the Plaintiff argues that Sonner is inapplicable given the
posture of the case. He reasons that because the Court has denied
class certification of the CLRA claim, he may only pursue equitable
relief under the UCL.
Judge Davilla finds it incorrect. He says, the ruling on class
certification does not preclude the Plaintiff from pursuing his
individual CLRA claim. The Plaintiff has a CLRA claim for damages
available to him in his individual capacity. He has not shown that
the legal remedies available to him are inadequate. Under Sonner,
the Plaintiff's individual UCL claim must be dismissed.
IV. Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, Judge Davilla granted the Defendant's
motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Plaintiff's UCL claim is
dismissed with prejudice. His CLRA claim is also dismissed with
prejudice to the extent it seeks equitable relief. Because the
Plaintiff's UCL claim is dismissed, the Plaintiff lacks standing to
seek certification of such claim on behalf of the putative class.
It follows that his motion for partial reconsideration of the
Court's order denying class certification is denied as moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3puhf26e from Leagle.com.
META PLATFORMS: District Court Certifies Class in DZ Reserve Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DZ RESERVE, et al., Plaintiffs v. META PLATFORMS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-04978-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James
Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order:
a. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
b. denying Meta's motion to exclude the report and testimony
of Dr. Allenby; and
c. granting Meta's motion to exclude the report and testimony
of Mr. McFarlane.
I. Introduction
In the action alleging fraud against Meta, formerly known as
Facebook, named Plaintiffs DZ Reserve and Cain Maxwell have asked
to certify a class of United States residents who paid Meta for
placement of advertisements on social media platforms. The gravamen
of the lawsuit is that Meta inflated its potential advertising
reach to consumers, and charged artificially high premiums for ad
placements. Meta opposes certification, and filed two Daubert
motions challenging the opinions and conclusions proffered by the
Plaintiffs' expert witnesses.
Three claims alleged in the Third Amended Complaint (TAC) remain in
play. The Court dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims for
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and a
quasi-contract claim. It sustained the Plaintiffs' claims for
fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment, with the
proviso that the Plaintiffs could not pursue those claims for
conduct before Aug. 15, 2015.
While the certification motion was pending, the Court granted a
motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the Plaintiffs'
claim of restitution under the California Unfair Competition Law
(UCL). The UCL claim was sustained for injunctive relief only.
Consequently, the claims subject to certification are fraudulent
misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment for damages, and the
UCL for injunctive relief.
II. Background
The undisputed facts are that Meta sells advertising to businesses
and business owners like Plaintiffs DZ Reserve and Cain Maxwell.
Meta's Ads Manager platform is used by advertisers to identify
their advertising targets, including the demographic reach they
desire. After advertisers select their targeting and placement
criteria, the Ads Manager displays a "Potential Reach" for the
advertisement. The Potential Reach is expressed as a number of
people that the ad may reach. The default Potential Reach number,
before any targeting criteria are selected, is the Potential Reach
for people in the United States aged 18 and up, which was shown
during the putative class period to be over 200 million people. As
targeting criteria are selected, the Potential Reach is revised
accordingly. Meta describes the Potential Reach as an estimate of
people in the ad's target audience.
The Plaintiffs propose to certify this class under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3): "All United States
residents (including natural persons and incorporated entities)
who, from Aug. 15, 2014, to the present (Class Period), paid for
the placement of at least one advertisement on Facebook's
platforms, including the Facebook and Instagram platforms, which
was purchased through Facebook's Ads Manager or Power Editor."
III. Discussion
As the parties seeking certification, the Plaintiffs bear the
burden of showing that the requirements of Rule 23 are met for
their proposed class.
A. Rule 23(B)(3) Class
The Rule 23(a) factors are the same for certification of the
proposed class under Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3), and the conclusions
reached in the case for the Rule 23(a) elements apply to both types
of classes. The main difference is the predominance element of Rule
23(b)(3), which Rule 23(b)(2) does not require. Judge Donato takes
up the proposed Rule 23(b)(3) class first.
He granted Meta's motion for judgment on the pleadings to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' UCL claims for restitution, so monetary relief is
only available for the Plaintiffs' common law fraudulent
concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation claims.
Judge Donato finds that (i) more than 2 million United States
advertisers purchased Facebook ads; (ii) Meta also has not
demonstrated an evidence-based reason to reject the adequacy of the
named Plaintiffs generally; (iii) Meta's mention of an arbitration
provision in contracts for advertising after May 2018 also does not
defeat the adequacy and typicality of the named Plaintiffs; (iv)
the Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the main liability issues are
common to the class members and are capable of resolution with
common evidence; (v) because the Plaintiffs have adequately shown
that they can calculate damages on a classwide basis using Dr.
Allenby's report and evidence from their other experts (excluding
Mr. McFarlane), they have shown an adequate damages model under
Rule 23(b)(3); and (vi) there can be no doubt in the case that a
class is the superior method of handling the claims of individual
advertisers.
B. A. Rule 23(B)(2) Class
The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(2)
for the UCL injunctive relief claim. The Rule 23(a) requirements of
numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy must also be
shown for a Rule 23(b)(2) class. As discussed, the Plaintiffs have
met their burden for proving the Rule 23(a) requirements.
For Rule 23(b)(2), the Court is not required "to examine the
viability or bases of class members' claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief, but only to look at whether class members seek
uniform relief from a practice applicable to all of them." "It is
sufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) that class
members complain of a pattern or practice that is generally
applicable to the class as a whole."
Judge Donato finds that the Plaintiffs have standing to seek an
injunction. They have proffered deposition testimony to the effect
that they would consider purchasing ads from Meta again if Meta
corrected or removed the misleading Potential Reach metric. Meta's
passing comment that the injunction the Plaintiffs seek is
"overbroad and unworkable," is no basis for denying certification.
The remark was not developed in a meaningful way, and concerns
about the scope of an injunction are premature at this stage. There
is considerably more to be done in the case, namely trial, before
the specific terms of an injunction might warrant debate.
Consequently, a Rule 23(b)(2) class is appropriate for the
Plaintiffs' UCL claims.
IV. Conclusion
Judge Donato certified the proposed class under Rule 23(b)(3) for
the common law fraud claims, and under Rule 23(b)(2) for the UCL
injunction claim. Plaintiffs DZ Reserve, Inc. and Cain Maxwell are
appointed the class representatives, and their counsel at Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and the Law Offices of Charles
Reichmann are appointed the class counsel.
Meta's motion to exclude the report and testimony of Dr. Allenby is
denied. Meta's motion to exclude the report and testimony of Mr.
McFarlane is granted.
The Plaintiffs are directed to file by April 29, 2022, a proposed
plan for dissemination of notice to the classes. They will meet and
confer with Meta at least 10 days in advance of filing the plan so
that the proposal can be submitted on a joint basis, to the fullest
extent possible.
A status conference is set for May 26, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. in
Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, in San Francisco. The parties are
directed to file a joint statement by May 19, 2022, with proposed
dates for the final pretrial conference and trial.
The parties are referred to Magistrate Judge Hixson for a
settlement conference to be held as his schedule permits.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/35kmcd2d from Leagle.com.
MGT CAPITAL: Settlement of Shareholder Row Wins Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
MGT Capital Investments, 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 final approval of a
class action settlement was granted in May 2020 over class action
lawsuits filed against the company alleging that the company
engaged in a pump-and-dump scheme. Parties have yet to implement
the settlement.
In September 2018 and October 2018, various shareholders of the
company filed putative class action lawsuits against the company,
its Chief Executive Officer and certain of its individual officers
and shareholders, alleging violations of federal securities laws
and seeking damages.
The first putative class action lawsuit was filed on September 28,
2018, in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, and alleges that the named defendants engaged in a
pump-and-dump scheme to artificially inflate the price of the
company's stock and that, as a result, defendants' statements about
the company's business and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at relevant times. The
second putative class action was filed on October 9, 2018, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and makes similar allegations.
On May 28, 2019, the parties to the 2018 securities class actions
entered into a binding settlement term sheet, and on September 24,
2019, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement. On
August 7, 2019, the lead plaintiff in the first class action filed
a notice and order of voluntary dismissal with prejudice, and on
October 11, 2019, the lead plaintiff in the second class action
filed in the federal court in New York an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement. On
December 17, 2019, the court issued an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement.
Final approval of the settlement of the 2018 Securities Class
Actions was granted on May 27, 2020.
MGT Capital Investments, Inc. is into computer processing and data
preparation based in North Carolina.
MINIM INC: Schulze Modem Product Litigation Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Minim, 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 July 28, 2020, the lead
plaintiff in a putative class action lawsuit against Zoom in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts filed a
Stipulation of Dismissal that dismissed said complaint with
prejudice.
On January 23, 2020, William Schulze filed a complaint, and
subsequently filed an amended complaint on April 3, 2020 as lead
plaintiff on behalf of purchasers of Zoom modems. The Schulze
Complaint alleged that Zoom modems were sold as new despite
containing refurbished parts.
Minim, Inc. is a networking company and delivers intelligent
software based in New Hampshire. On December 4, 2020, Minim
acquired Zoom Connectivity, Inc., a Delaware corporation that
delivered its WiFi management and security Software as a Service to
Internet Service Providers to unlock bottom line growth through
increased subscriber acquisition, retention, and support cost
efficiency.
MINNESOTA: Daywitt, et al., Lose Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH DAYWITT, DAVID
JANNETTA, STEVEN HOGY, MERLIN ADOLPHSON, MICHAEL WHIPPLE, PETER
LONERGAN, and RUSSELL HATTON, v. JODI HARPESTEAD, MARSHALL SMITH,
NANCY JOHNSTON, JIM BERG, JANNINE HEBERT, KEVIN MOSER, TERRY
KNIESEL, and RAY RUOTSALAINEN, Case No. 0:20-cv-01743-NEB-HB (D.
Minn.), the Hon. Judge Nancy E. Brasel entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
2. denying Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction;
and
3. denying the Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint.
The Plaintiffs move the Court on three grounds. First, they ask the
Court to certify a class to include "all patients currently civilly
committed in Minnesota Sex Offender Program [MSOP] pursuant to
Minn. Stat. section 253B," to appoint the named plaintiffs as class
representatives, and to appoint adequate counsel to represent the
class. Second, Plaintiffs ask the Court for a temporary restraining
order for additional storage space to hold legal materials. Third,
Plaintiffs move to amend their Complaint to add two new plaintiffs,
another defendant, and another claim.
The Plaintiffs are civilly committed individuals in the MSOP who
have sued several MSOP employees alleging that MSOP restrictions on
its residents' internet use are unconstitutional.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/363moVf at no extra charge.[CC]
ML ENTERPRISES: Reyes Partly Wins Bid for Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WUILMER REYES, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ML ENTERPRISES and MARCO LEZAMETA,
Defendants, Case No. 21-C-437 (E.D. Wis.), Judge Lynn Adelman of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
I. Background
Reyes brought the individual and putative class and collective
action against his former employers, Defendants ML Enterprises and
Marco Lezameta, to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and Wisconsin state law. Reyes now moves for
conditional certification under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
II. Discussion
Before turning to Reyes' submissions, Judge Adelman briefly
addresses the Defendants' arguments. The Defendants mistakenly
believed that Reyes moved for Rule 23 class certification and thus
applied the wrong standard throughout their brief. Putting that
failure aside, the Defendants contend that they are not covered
enterprises under the FLSA because their annual revenues do no
exceed $500,000.
However, Judge Adelman explains that a decision on this issue would
be premature at conditional certification where the court does not
adjudicate the merits of the plaintiff's claims. Therefore, the
Defendants do not make any persuasive arguments against conditional
certification.
As for Reyes, he submitted a declaration from himself and discovery
responses from the Defendants to support his motion. He states that
he was employed by the Defendants to perform construction and snow
removal work in 2020 and 2021. During his employment, Reyes worked
up to 54 and 55.5 hours per week and would report his hours to the
Defendants. The Defendants only paid him a straight time wage,
never an overtime wage, for all time worked in excess of 40 hours
per week. Reyes further states that he often filled out his
timecard with his coworkers. At least three other individuals
performed construction work and up to eight other individuals
performed snow removal work. He observed that his coworkers also
worked more than 40 hours per week. In response to an interrogatory
asking the Defendants to identify all employees to whom they had
paid overtime wages since April 2018, the Defendants stated,
"None."
Reyes also provides details about his snow removal work. When he
performed such work, he would pick up a truck, drive it to Jake's
Landscaping, and load it with all the salt needed for the day.
After loading the truck, he would drive to the first worksite. At
Jake's Landscaping, Reyes would fill out a timecard, noting when he
arrived at the day's first snow removal worksite. He would only
start earning a wage when he arrived at the first worksite. Reyes
observed that other coworkers picked up salt at Jake's Landscape in
ML Enterprises trucks.
Mr. Reyes contends that he has made a "modest factual showing" that
he is similarly situated to all hourly employees who worked for ML
Enterprises during the period of April 6, 2019, to present. He
contends that he has sufficiently demonstrated that the Defendants
maintained two policies that allegedly violate the FLSA: (1) the
Defendants did not pay hourly employees overtime wages for time
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, and (2) the Defendants did
not compensate hourly employees for work performed before arriving
at the day's first snow removal worksite.
Judge Adelman holds that Reyes has met his burden with respect to
the first policy only. Reyes' declaration establishes that, at
times, he and his coworkers worked more than 40 hours per week for
the Defendants. Accepting these facts as true, as the Court must,
the Defendants' admission that they have not paid overtime wages to
any employee since April 2018 is decisive in demonstrating that the
Defendants had a policy against paying hourly employees overtime.
As for the second policy, Reyes' declaration establishes that he
was not compensated for time spent picking up the truck, loading it
with salt, and driving it to the day's first snow removal worksite.
Reyes contends that Judge Adelman may reasonably infer that "the
same payroll policies were also applied to other ML Enterprises
employees who performed snow removal work."
But Judge Adelman does not agree. Allowing a plaintiff to meet
their conditional certification burden by merely detailing their
own job duties and compensation would turn an admittedly lenient
standard into a nearly nonexistent one.
Mr. Reyes set out to make a modest factual showing that he and his
coworkers were not paid for work performed before arriving at the
day's first snow removal worksite, but he did not provide any
evidence that such a pay practice extended beyond himself. He does
not explicitly state that the Defendants' practice applied
companywide. Nor does he provide any declarations from coworkers or
other documentation that support such a finding. At the very least,
he could have alleged that he observed his coworkers fill out
Jake's Landscaping timecards as he did. But he has not provided any
of this evidence. The most Judge Adelman can infer is that Reyes
and his coworkers performed similar duties on snow removal days.
That is not enough to establish an "identifiable factual nexus that
binds the Plaintiffs together as victims of" this particular
alleged FLSA violation.
Accordingly, Judge Adelman concludes that Reyes has made the
requisite modest factual showing only with respect to the claim
that the Defendants maintained a policy against paying hourly
employees overtime wages for time work in excess of 40 hours per
week. This conclusion requires Reyes to amend his proposed notice.
Reyes must remove all language from the notice that mentions the
off-the-clock claim.
In particular, Judge Adelman directs Reyes to amend the language
under the heading "Description of the Lawsuit" as follows: "Wuilmer
Reyes has filed a lawsuit against ML Enterprises and its owner,
Marco Lezameta, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin to recover unpaid wages and other damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin state law. The
case number is 21-CV-437. The Court has authorized the undersigned
attorney to inform all hourly employees who worked for ML
Enterprises during the period of April 6, 2019, to present of the
following claim.
The lawsuit alleges that you were entitled to overtime when you
worked for ML Enterprises and Lezameta. The lawsuit alleges that
when you worked more than 40 hours per week, ML Enterprises and
Lezameta did not pay you an overtime wage for all time worked in
excess of 40 hours per week. Take the example of an employee whose
hourly wage was $20 and who worked 50 hours in a particular week.
The lawsuit alleges that ML Enterprises and Lezameta would have
paid the employee $1,000 for that particular week -- $20 per hour
for 50 hours of work. The lawsuit alleges that ML Enterprises and
Lezameta should have paid that employee $1,100 for that particular
week -- $20 per hour for the first 40 hours of work and then $30
per hour (1.5 times the employee's hourly wage) for the remaining
10 hours of work.
ML Enterprises and Lezameta deny that their timekeeping and payroll
practices violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. This is a question
that the Court must still decide."
Judge Adelman also directs Reyes to amend the first sentence of the
consent form as follows: "I, __________, hereby consent to
participate in the lawsuit brought by Wuilmer Reyes against ML
Enterprises and Marco Lezameta to recover overtime pay and other
available damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act."
With those amendments, Judge Adelman authorizes Reyes to send the
proposed notice and consent form by first class mail to all hourly
employees who worked for ML Enterprises during the period of April
6, 2019, to present.
III. Conclusion
Mr. Reyes' motion for conditional certification is granted in part
and denied in part.
Reyes will amend the proposed notice and consent form in accordance
with the decision. Reyes may send the amended notice and consent
form by first class mail to all hourly employees who worked for ML
Enterprises during the period of April 6, 2019, to present. He will
promptly notify the Court and the Defendants of the date on which
he sent the notices and consent forms.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ye9j4cs7 from Leagle.com.
MODOC TRIBE: Dearry Alleges Improper Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
IDELL DEARRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BILL FOLLIS, Chief of the Modoc Nation, in
his individual and official capacities; ROBERT BURKYBILE, Second
Chief of the Modoc Nation, in his individual and official
capacities; THE MODOC TRIBE FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY d/b/a
500FASTCASH, and JOHN DOES Nos. 1-15, Defendants, Case
2:22-cv-01414-CFK (E.D. Pa., April 11, 2022) alleges violation of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff challenged the legality
of the Defendants' high interest loans and seeks damages and
declaratory relief against co-conspirators participating in this
illegal scheme, including, most importantly, those whose identities
have been deliberately concealed.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have actively
participated in the scheme and have conspired with each other and
others to repeatedly violate state lending statutes resulting in
the collection of unlawful debt from Plaintiff and the members of
the class described below.
THE MODOC TRIBE FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY d/b/a 500FASTCASH is a
tribally-owned corporation chartered pursuant to the laws of the
Modoc Nation, a federally recognized Indian Tribe. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Irv Ackelsberg, Esq.
LANGER GROGAN & DIVER PC
1717 Arch Street, Suite 4020
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 320-5660
Facsimile: (215) 320-5703
Email: iackelsberg@langergrogan.com
-and-
Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO, PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
MRAE LLC: Faces Cotton Suit Over Unpaid Overtime for Dancers
------------------------------------------------------------
MEGHAN COTTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MRAE, LLC, MICHELLE EBERT and FRANK
COLACURCIO, JR., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00432 (W.D. Wash.,
April 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its
failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated dancers
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Washington Minimum Wage Act, and the Washington Rebate Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a dancer from 2003 until
March of 2020.
MRAE, LLC is an owner and operator of an adult entertainment club
known as Kittens Cabaret, located in Seattle, Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
April Rheaume, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (800) 615-4946
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: april@sanfordlawfirm.com
MY WIRELESS GLA: Tadle Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against My Wireless GLA Inc.
The case is styled as Jonathan Tadle, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. My Wireless GLA Inc., a
California corporation, Case No. 22STCV12006 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., April 8, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
My Wireless GLA Inc. -- http://www.mywirelessadvantage.com/-- is
under Voice Messaging Equipment and Services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward W. Choi, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
Phone: 213-381-1515
Fax: 213-465-4885
Email: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Coaches Joined the Racial Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madeline Coleman at si.com reports that as two NFL coaches joined
the racial discrimination class action against the league, Brian
Flores also added a new team to the now amended filing: the Texans.
When Flores initially filed the lawsuit in February, he was
reported by multiple outlets to be a finalist for the head coach
vacancy in Houston alongside Eagles defensive coordinator Jonathan
Gannon and former backup quarterback Josh McCown. Gannon later was
reportedly out of contention, and Flores and McCown, who had no NFL
coaching experience, were reportedly the final ones left in the
running.
The amended filing states that the "Texans were rightfully
concerned that if it hired Mr. McCown over Mr. Flores, it would
bolster Mr. Flores' allegations of systemic discrimination against
Black candidates, particularly given that the team had just fired
Black Head Coach David Culley after only one season." Several days
later, Houston promoted Lovie Smith from defensive coordinator to
head coach.
The lawsuit said, "To be clear, Mr. Smith is more than qualified
for the role, and it is a positive thing that another Black Head
Coach has been hired by an NFL football team;" however, it went on
to call the move "problematic." It alleges that Houston chose not
to hire Flores "in the first place was because he filed this
lawsuit and opposed systemic racism in the NFL."
"Upon information and belief, either the Texans made this
retaliatory decision on its own or the NFL-through the
Commissioner's office and/or other member teams and/or surrogates
from the NFL or its member teams-pressured the Texans not to hire
Mr. Flores to be its Head Coach after he filed this lawsuit, or
some combination thereof."
Flores's class-action complaint also features a variety of claims
against the league and three franchises, the Giants, Broncos and
Dolphins. Flores claims he participated in two "sham" interviews
with New York and Denver, in which he says was not a serious
candidate for the positions. Both teams have denied the claims.
Shortly after the news broke of the initial filing, the NFL
released a statement asserting its commitment to diversity and
called the former Dolphins coach's claims "without merit."
Flores also claimed in the lawsuit that Miami owner Stephen Ross
offered him a $100,000 bonus for each loss during the 2019 season,
wanting to secure the league's worst record so the team could have
the No. 1 pick in the '20 draft. Ross has denied these claims.
Coaches Steve Wilks and Ray Horton also joined the complaint.
Wilks, who served as the Cardinals' coach during the 2018 campaign,
said in the amended filing that the franchise hired him as a
"bridge coach" but did not have long-term plans to keep him on the
team. Arizona released a statement to Sports Illustrated's Conor
Orr concerning the matter, saying "we are confident that the facts
reflect that and demonstrate that these allegations are untrue."
Horton described accounts similar to Flores's, claiming the Titans
conducted a "sham" interview with him to meet the Rooney Rule
requirements. The pretrial conference for the lawsuit is currently
scheduled for April 29.
This is not the only controversy Houston has faced as of late. It
recently was a part of a blockbuster trade that sent its
quarterback, Deshaun Watson, to the Browns, where he signed a
record-setting contract that became the largest guaranteed deal in
league history but was met with public outcry.
The quarterback faces 22 active civil lawsuits detailing graphic
accounts of sexual harassment and sexual assault. Watson denied
assaulting, harassing or disrespecting any woman during his
introductory press conference with the Browns.
The NFL's investigation into Watson for violating the league's
personal conduct policy is still ongoing, and he could still face
suspension. Commissioner Roger Goodell is reportedly not the one
who will determine whether Watson faces a suspension, fine or face
no penalty, according to Yahoo Sports. In a recent press
conference, Goodell said the quarterback will, in all likelihood,
not land on the commissioner's exempt list, per The MMQB's Albert
Breer. [GN]
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Titans Named in Flores Suit Over Fake Hiring
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Ragan at atozsports.com reports that the Tennessee Titans were
named in Brian Flores' ongoing class-action lawsuit against the
NFL.
Former Arizona Cardinals head coach Steve Wilks and former Titans
defensive coordinator Ray Horton joined the lawsuit. Horton is
alleging that his interview with the Titans after the 2015 season
was a sham that was held only to satisfy the NFL's Rooney Rule.
Some of Horton's evidence is a podcast interview that former Titans
head coach Mike Mularkey (who was hired over Horton) did in 2020
where he admitted that Tennessee conducted a "fake hiring process".
Mularkey said that the Titans told him he was getting the job
before they went through the Rooney Rule process.
This seemingly lines up with what former Titans president Steve
Underwood said in early 2016 (after Mularkey was hired).
"Somewhere during that process I think it coalesced for Amy and she
had made the decision she already knew Mike [Mularkey]," said
Underwood in January, 2016 (via Pro Football Talk). "She had a
comfort level with Mike. But she wanted to reach out and look
around to make sure there was not any other viable candidates for
her, in terms of our club and where we were going."
The Titans also interviewed Teryl Austin (a minority) and Doug
Marrone before officially hiring Mularkey.
We'll see how this plays out in the coming months, but there's some
fairly strong evidence to support Horton's claim.[GN]
NAVIENT CORP: Faces Suit Over Consumer Protection Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1 disclosed in its Distribution Report
on Form 10-D for the distribution period from December 1, 2021 to
December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 7, 2022, that Navient has been named as
defendant in a number of putative class action cases alleging
violations of various state and federal consumer protection laws
including the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer
Financial Protection Act of 2010, the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and various other state
consumer protection laws.
SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1 is into backed securities based in
Virginia. Navient Funding, LLC and Navient Solutions, LLC are
sponsors of the SLM Student Loan Trust 2014-2.
NETFLIX INC: Shiloh Suit Remanded to St. Clair County Circuit Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois grants the Plaintiff's motion to
remand the lawsuit styled VILLAGE OF SHILOH, Plaintiff v. NETFLIX,
INC., DIRECTV, LLC, DISH NETWORK CORP., DISH NETWORK, LLC, HULU,
LLC, and DISNEY PLATFORM DISTRIBUTION, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:21-CV-807-MAB (S.D. Ill.), to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.
Background
The Illinois Cable and Video Competition Law of 2007, 220 ILL.
COMP. STAT. 5/21-100, et seq. ("the Act" or the "Illinois law"),
requires providers of "cable service or video service" to obtain
authorization to provide their services and pay fees to the local
cities, villages, towns, and counties in which they do business and
whose public rights-of-way the providers utilize in delivering
their services. Many states have similar laws, and the question
being posed to courts across the country is whether streaming
platforms, such as Netflix and Hulu, which came into being after
the laws were enacted are subject to the laws and should be paying
a fair share of fees.
On June 9, 2021, the City of East St. Louis, Illinois, filed an
original action in this district against a number of streaming
platforms alleging they provide "video service" within the meaning
of the Act but have failed to comply with its requirements, namely
that they pay the required fees to local governments (City of East
St. Louis v. Netflix, Inc., et al., SDIL Case No. 21-cv-561-MAB).
The City of East St. Louis seeks declaratory and injunctive relief
and damages relating to the Defendants' failure to pay fees under
the Act on behalf of a putative class of all local units of
government in which the Defendants provide video service.
Five days later, the Village of Shiloh, Illinois filed a
substantially similar putative class action in the Circuit Court
for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in St. Clair County, Illinois.
Defendant Netflix removed the case to this district on July 15,
2021, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act,
28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d) ("CAFA"). All other Defendants have since
joined in or consented to removal. Like the East St. Louis case,
here the Village alleges that the Defendants offer "video service"
within the meaning of the Act but have failed to pay the required
fees to local governments. The Village seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief and damages relating to the Defendants' failure
to pay the fees under the Act on behalf of a putative class of all
local units of government in which the Defendants provide video
service.
The Village timely filed the motion to remand that is presently
before the Court. The Village does not dispute that the elements
necessary for removal under CAFA are satisfied (the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million, there is minimal diversity of
citizenship, and there are more than 100 putative class members) or
that this Court's subject matter jurisdiction over the case is
secure. The Village instead argues that the Court should remand the
case because under comity principles, the matter is more
appropriately decided by the Illinois state courts.
Discussion
As the Court previously noted, it is not the first case of its kind
in which municipalities have sued streaming platforms for failure
to pay franchise fees. Indeed, many other federal courts, including
the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, have already been asked the
question being posed here--whether the Court should decline to
exercise federal jurisdiction and, thus, remand the case back to
state court under the doctrine of comity abstention because the
case involves local revenue collection and taxation under a
specific state's regulatory scheme. The courts that have been asked
this question have all favored remand (City of Fishers v. Netflix,
Inc., 501 F.Supp.3d 653, 2020 WL 6778426 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 18,
2020)).
In City of Fishers, four cities in Indiana filed suit against
DirecTV, Dish Network, Netflix, Hulu, and Disney DTC in Indiana
state court based on the defendants' failure to pay franchise fees
to Indiana municipalities under Indiana's Video Service Franchises
Act, Ind. Code Sections 8-1-34-1, et seq. The defendants removed
the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005 and the plaintiffs (the cities) then sought remand, invoking
the comity abstention doctrine under Levin v. Commerce Energy,
Inc., 560 U.S. 413, 421 (2010). The district court agreed with the
cities and remanded, and the decision was affirmed by the Seventh
Circuit.
The Court sees no reason why the Seventh Circuit's analysis in City
of Fishers does not also hold true here. The Village seeks the same
relief under Illinois law that the plaintiffs in City of Fishers
sought under the related Indiana law. Specifically, they all sought
a declaration that streaming platforms are video service providers
and, therefore, must pay a small percentage of their earnings to
local units of government in which they do business.
The Defendants, however, oppose remand and make several arguments
as to why the Court should exercise its discretion and deny remand.
To begin with, the Defendants suggest, but do not affirmatively
assert, that when a case is properly removed under CAFA, federal
courts can only remand the case based on the express exceptions set
forth in the statute (i.e., the "local controversy" exception and
the home-state exception) and lack the authority to remand the case
based on non-statutory grounds, such as the comity abstention
principles at the heart of Levin.
Judge Beatty notes that in City of Fishers, the Seventh Circuit
gave a thorough explanation in dicta as to why this argument was
unavailing but declined to make it a definitive holding because the
defendants had waived the argument. The Defendants here have not
offered any argument that persuasively pushes back against the
Seventh Circuit's explanation of how statutes conferring federal
jurisdiction must still be considered in tandem with comity
abstention principles, when appropriate.
The Defendants also contend, among other things, that because it
was "a taxing authority," meaning the City of East St. Louis and
the Village of Shiloh, who initiated suit to determine the proper
interpretation and application of the Act, this case is different
than all of the other taxpayer-initiated lawsuits in which comity
abstention was warranted. But this argument has also been rebuffed
by the Seventh Circuit, Judge Beatty points out, citing City of
Fishers, 5 F.4th 755.
Specifically, the Seventh Circuit held that the fees at issue,
which yield revenue for municipalities, much like a tax, could thus
be understood as a tax for Levin purposes. Therefore, regardless of
who brought the underlying suit, the district court's resolution of
the merits issues will risk or result in federal court interference
with the fiscal affairs of local government--the principal concern
of Levin because the district court's decision will impact the
cities' ability to generate revenue, either by permitting the
collection of franchise fees or by cutting off a line of potential
income.
In sum, the question of whether a court should decline federal
jurisdiction and remand a case back to state court under the comity
abstention doctrine is, of course, a use of the Court's discretion,
Judge Beatty says. However, every other court that has been asked
to answer this question in nearly identical cases around the
country had chosen to remand. And in one instance, the district
court's remand order was affirmed by the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals. Of course, this case presented a wrinkle in that a similar
lawsuit was filed as an original action in this Court and the Judge
may soon be deciding motions to dismiss in that case.
But here, the Defendants never formally committed to moving this
Court to stay this case, Judge Beatty notes. Nor did they formally
ask the Court to consolidate or coordinate the two, or employ some
other case-management tool with respect to the two cases.
The Court is not a clairvoyant and it is simply not the type of
issue it can and should address sua sponte without formal briefing
and a full-throated discussion on the topic because the path
forward is not manifestly clear, Judge Beatty points out. And
finally, no party has pointed this Court to any authority where a
federal district court found all of the Levin factors weighed in
favor of abstention, but nevertheless declined to abstain based on
case-management reasons. Accordingly, the Court must remand the
case to state court.
Conclusion
Plaintiff Village of Shiloh's motion to remand is granted. The case
is remanded to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated March
24, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2e5u9vbd from
Leagle.com.
NEW YORK TIMES: Perkins NCGS Suit Removed to E.D. North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SARAH PERKINS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, d/b/a THE
NEW YORK TIMES, Case No. 22-CVS-2292, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of North Carolina, County of Wake, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on April
4, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-00123-M to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of North
Carolina General Statutes' requirements regarding contracts that
automatically renew, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and
unjust enrichment by paying subscription renewal charges.
The New York Times Company, doing business as The New York Times,
is an American mass media company, headquartered in New York, New
York. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Stephen V. Carey, Esq.
PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP
301 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1400
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 835-4011
Facsimile: (919) 834-4564
E-mail: stevecarey@parkerpoe.com
NORTH AMERICAN: Advance Trust Files Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADVANCE TRUST & LIFE
ESCROW SERVICES, LTA, as securities intermediary for Life Partners
Position Holder Trust, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, v. NORTH AMERICAN COMPANY FOR LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00368-SMR-HCA (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge
Stephanie M. Rose entered an order:
1. certifying a class consisting of:
"all current and former owners of Classic Term UL I or II
issued or insured by North American Company for Life &
Health Insurance, or its predecessors, during the Class
Period;"
This Class shall not include Defendant North American, its
officers and directors, members of their immediate
families, and the heirs, successors or assigns of any of
the foregoing; anyone employed with Plaintiff’s counsel’s
firms; and any Judge to whom this case is assigned, and
his or her immediate family;
2. appointing Plaintiff Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services,
LTA, as class representatives; and
3. appointing attorneys from Susman Godfrey as class counsel.
The Court said, "In addition to satisfying the threshold
requirements of Rule 23(a), a proposed class must also comply with
at least "one of the three subsections of Rule 23(b)." The
Plaintiff seeks class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Subsection
(b)(3) requires that the Plaintiff establish that "questions of law
or fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and that a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy." This requirement is similar but
"more demanding" than the related commonality requirement of Rule
23(a). "The predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are
sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation"
and "calls upon courts
to give careful scrutiny to the relation between common and
individual questions in a case."
This case involves the calculation of monthly deductions from two
universal life ("UL") insurance products ("Class Policies") issued
by the Defendant North American Company for Life and Health
Insurance ("North American" or "Defendant").
The Plaintiff Advance Trust owns a universal life insurance policy
("Representative Policy") that was issued in Florida by North
American. Advance Trust is suing in its capacity as securities
intermediary for Life Partners Position Holder Trust.
Universal life insurance is a type of permanent life insurance.
Contrasted with standard term life insurance, the Class Policies
combine a death benefit with an investment, savings, or
interest-bearing component ("Savings Component"). Typically, life
insurance policies such as the Class Policies deposit premium
payments into the Savings Component and the insurer will deduct
policy-authorized monthly charges.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37wb3gP at no extra charge.[CC]
NORTHWEST NUTRITIONAL: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northwest Nutritional
Foods, LLC. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northwest Nutritional
Foods, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02910 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Northwest Nutritional Foods, LLC doing business as Zing Bars --
https://zingbars.com/ -- is located in Seattle, Washington and is
part of the Health and Personal Care Stores Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
NOVO BUILDING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Vogt Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL VOGT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NOVO BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01998 (D.N.J., April 6, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant seeking all available relief for unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage
and Hour Law, and New Jersey Wage and Hour Regulations.
The Defendant allegedly violated the FLSA and the NJWHL by
misclassifying Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as exempt
"Account Service Managers" or "Territory Service Representatives"
and failing to pay these employees for all the hours worked,
failing to pay them overtime in a timely manner, and failing to pay
them the legally required amount of overtime compensation required
by law for all hours worked over 40 in a work week.
Mr. Vogt began his employment with Defendant in June 2013. From
June 2013 through August 2021, Plaintiff was in a position
nominally titled "Account Service Manager." He accepted a position
with Defendant titled "Area Manager" from September 2021 to
December 12, 2021. Mr. Vogt returned to the position titled
"Account Service Manager" starting December 13, 2021. The Defendant
changed Plaintiff's title from "Account Service Manager" to
"Territory Service Representative" on March 3, 2022. The Plaintiff
ended his employment with Defendant on March 28, 2022.
Novo Building Products, LLC is a manufacturer and distributor of
building materials organized under the laws of Delaware, with its
principal office located in Zeeland, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH, LLC
363 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 2C
Montclair, NJ 07042
Telephone: (973) 259-6990
Facsimile: (866) 848-1368
E-mail: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com
- and -
Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 847-8315
Facsimile: (646) 964-9620
E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com
- and -
David R. Markham, Esq.
THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
750 B Street, Suite 1950
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 399-3995
Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
OATS OVERNIGHT: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oats Overnight, Inc.
The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Oats Overnight, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02911 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Oats Overnight -- https://www.oatsovernight.com/ -- uses certified
gluten free oats and superfood ingredients like maca root, raw
cacao, hemp, coffee and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
OBI SEAFOODS: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to May 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIJA PAUNOVIC and DUSAN
PAUNOVIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. OBI SEAFOODS LLC, an Alaska corporation, and OCEAN
BEAUTY SEAFOODS LLC, an Alaska corporation, Case No.
2:21-cv-00884-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Marsha J. Pechman
entered an order that the current deadlines regarding the motion
for class certification are extended by 60 days, such that the
motion is now due on May 24, 2022, the response is due June 21,
2022, and the reply is due July 5, 2022.
The Court further ordered that the current deadline for discovery
motions is extended to July 15, 2022, and the deadline for
completion of discovery is extended to August 31, 2022.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O8IRRV at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
Ryan Tack-Hooper, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103-8869
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
E-mail: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
rtack-hooper@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Tamara Kenworthey, Esq.
KENWORTHEY LAW
E-mail: tkenworthey@kenwortheylaw.com
137 Fifth Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (718) 344-5746
The Defendants are represented by:
Renea I. Saade, Esq.
Douglas E. Smith, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
500 L Street, Suite 201
Anchorage, AL 99501
Telephone: (907) 561-1214
Facsimile: (907) 561-1215
E-mail: rsaade@littler.com
desmith@littler.com
OLD NAVY: Scheduling Order Entered in Harris Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONELLE HARRIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OLD
NAVY, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09946-GHW-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein entered a scheduling order as follows:
a. Deadline to serve initial April 22, 2022
disclosures pursuant to Rule
26(a)(1):
b. Deadline to serve initial May 23, 2022
document requests and initial
interrogatories:
c. Deadline to complete fact November 23, 2022
discovery related to class
certification:
d. Deadline for parties to produce January 23, 2023
any affirmative expert report(s)
and Rule 26(a)(2) disclosure(s):
e. Deadline to depose any affirmative February 22, 2023
expert(s):
f. Deadline to produce any rebuttal April 24, 2023
expert report(s) and
Rule 26(a)(2) disclosure(s):
g. Deadline to depose any rebuttal May 23, 2023
expert(s):
h. Deadline to complete expert May 23, 2023
discovery related to class
certification issues:
Old Navy is an American clothing and accessories retailing company
owned by multinational corporation Gap Inc. It has corporate
operations in the Mission Bay neighborhood of San Francisco,
California.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v3fgR6 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana Cimera, Esq.
Brian Schaffer, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER LLP
28 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212)-300-0375
E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com
dcimera@fslawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ira Rosenstein, Esq.
Nicole Zito, Esq.
Elisa Egonu, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178
Telephone: (212)-309-6960
E-mail: irosenstein@morganlewis.com
nicole.zito@morganlewis.com
elisa.egonu@morganlewis.com
PELICIA HALL: Court Stays Alexander Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW ALEXANDER, ET AL.
v. PELICIA E. HALL, ET AL., Alexander et al v. Hall et al., Case
No. 4:20-cv-00021-SA-JMV (N.D. Miss.), the Court entered an order
that the motion to stay is granted, and all proceedings, excluding
discovery relating to qualified immunity, are stayed.
This case was filed on February 10, 2020. On November 2, 2021, this
Court entered an order setting aside entry of default and granting
in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The
stay that had been imposed since July 21, 2020, was then lifted,
and a case management conference was held on December 3, 2021.
Following the conference, a case management order (class
certification scheduling order) was entered.
On December 17, 2021, Defendants filed an answer to the Amended
Complaint. On January 12, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
to effectuate late service upon Defendant Marshal Turner. On
February 8, 2022, this Court entered an order granting the motion
and giving Plaintiffs 10 days to serve Defendant Marshal Turner.
According to the proof of service, Defendant Turner was served on
February 11, 2022. Then, on March 4, 2022, the Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint against
Defendant Marshal Turner on immunity grounds and to partially
vacate this Court's prior order under Rule 54. The Defendants then
filed a motion to stay pursuant to Local Uniform Civil Rule
16(b)(3)(B), seeking a stay of all discovery against all Defendants
pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss and vacate. The
Plaintiffs responded in opposition, arguing that under the local
stay rule, the Court should only stay discovery as to Defendant
Marshal Turner. The Defendants replied on March 16, 2022.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/365srsy at no extra charge.[CC]
PETROPLEX ACIDIZING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Dahl Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
DARVIN DAHL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PETROPLEX ACIDIZING, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:22-cv-00252-GJF-CG (D.N.M., April 4, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff
and similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a acidizer or treater in
New Mexico.
Petroplex Acidizing, Inc. is a provider of production services and
technology and downhole services to the oil field industry based in
New Mexico. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
440 Louisiana, Ste. 1110
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
- and –
Curt Hesse, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
440 Louisiana, Ste. 1110
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net
PLUM ORGANICS: Case Schedule Entered in Baby Food Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ON RE PLUM BABY FOOD
LITIGATION, Case No. 4:21-cv-00913-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered the following case schedule:
Event Deadline
-- Mediation Completion Date July 29, 2022
-- The Plaintiffs' expert disclosures Oct. 21, 2022
regarding class certification:
-- The Defendant's expert disclosures Dec. 16, 2022
regarding class certification:
-- Expert depositions and Nov. 27, 2023
Class Certification:
-- Expert Discovery Cutoff: Nov. 27, 2023
-- Motion for Class Certification Feb. 14, 2023
-- Opposition to Class Certification March 28, 23
and Defendant's Daubert Motions:
-- Reply in Support of Class April 18, 2023
Certification and
Plaintiff’s Daubert Motions:
-- Opposition to Defendant's April 26, 2023
Daubert Motions:
-- Defendant's Reply in Support May 9, 2023
of Daubert Motion:
-- Opposition to Plaintiff's May 17, 2023
Daubert Motions:
-- Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' June 6, 2023
Daubert Motions:
A copy of the Court's order dated March 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uy9cBq at no extra charge.[CC]
POWER SOLUTIONS: BIPA Suit in Illinois Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
Power Solutions International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K
Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2022, that a class
action stay remains pending further guidance from the Court with
regards to an October 2018 complaint filed against the company and
NOVAtime Technology, Inc. in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.
The operative, amended complaint asserts violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) in connection with
employees' use of the time clock to clock in and clock out using a
finger scan and seeks statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and
injunctive and equitable relief. In May 2019, the company filed its
motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint.
In December 2019, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss.
In January 2020, the company moved for reconsideration of the
court's order denying the motion to dismiss, or in the alternative,
to stay another case pending the Illinois Appellate court's ruling
in "McDonald v. Symphony Healthcare" on a legal question that would
be potentially dispositive in this matter. In February 2020, the
court denied the company's motion for reconsideration, but required
the parties to submit additional briefing on the company's motion
to stay.
In April 2020, the court granted the company's motion to stay and
stayed the case pending the Illinois Appellate Court's ruling in
"McDonald v. Symphony Healthcare." In October 2020, after the
McDonald ruling, the court granted the parties' joint request to
continue the stay of the case for 60 days. The court also ordered
the parties to schedule a settlement conference with the Magistrate
Judge in May 2021 which went forward without a settlement being
reached.
The stay remains in place pending further guidance from the Court.
Power Solutions International, Inc., designs, engineers,
manufactures, markets and sells emission-certified engines and
power systems based in Illinois.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED: Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Due August 22
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shah v. Qualcomm
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00121 (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Jinsook Ohta entered an order on motion for miscellaneous
relief as follows:
-- The Defendants shall file their July 22, 2022
opposition to Lead Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification
on or before:
-- Lead Plaintiffs shall file their August 22, 2022
reply in support on or before:
-- The hearing date is scheduled September 14, 2022
for:
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.
Qualcomm is an American multinational corporation headquartered in
San Diego, California, and incorporated in Delaware.[CC]
RAYMOND JAMES: Young Seeks Blind Customers' Equal Access to Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02811 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.raymondjames.com/, contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the general public
through the website. These access barriers include, but not limited
to: (a) lack of alternative text (alt-text), or a text equivalent;
(b) empty links that contain no text; (c) redundant links; and (d)
linked images missing alt-text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. is an online financial
advisor service company that conducts business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Bumpus, et al., Seek to Certify Classes, Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH BUMPUS, DAVID GRITZ,
MICHELINE PEKER, and CHERYL ROWAN, individually, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons, v. REALOGY HOLDINGS CORP.;
REALOGY INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS LLC; REALOGY GROUP LLC; REALOGY
SERVICES GROUP LLC; REALOGY BROKERAGE GROUP LLC (f/k/a NRT LLC);
and MOJO DIALING SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-03309-JD (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the National Do Not Call Registry Nationwide
Class (NDNCR) Class and appointing Plaintiff Sarah Bumpus
as the class representative thereof:
"All persons in the United States who received two or more
calls made by a Coldwell Banker-affiliated Agent using a
Mojo, PhoneBurner, and/or Storm dialer in any 12-month
period on a residential landline or cell phone number that
appeared on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least
31 days for the time period beginning June 11, 2015, to
present;"
2. certifying the National Internal Do Not Call (Internal
DNC) Class and appointing Plaintiff Sarah Bumpus as the
class representative thereof:
"All persons in the United States who received, in any 12-
month period, two or more calls promoting Coldwell
Banker's services and made by a Coldwell Banker-affiliated
Agent to their residential landline or cell phone number,
for the time period beginning June 11, 2015, to present.
These persons seek only injunctive relief."
3. certifying the National Artificial or Prerecorded Message
Class and appointing Plaintiffs Cheryl Rowan and Micheline
Peker as the class representatives thereof:
"All persons in the United States who received a call on
their residential telephone line or cell phone number with
an artificial or prerecorded message, as indicated by the
following call disposition codes: (1) "Drop Message" (if
using the Mojo dialer); (2) "ATTENDED_TRANSFER" (if using
the Storm dialer); and (3) "VOICEMAIL" (if using a
PhoneBurner dialer) in the call records listed in Appendix
A and made by a Coldwell Banker- affiliated Agent for the
time period beginning June 11, 2015, to present."
4. certifying the Prerecorded Message Mojo Subclass and
appointing Plaintiff Micheline Peker as the class
representative thereof:
"All persons in the United States who received a call on
their residential telephone line or cell phone number with
an artificial or prerecorded message, as indicated by the
call disposition code "Drop Message" in the call records
and made by a Coldwell Banker-affiliated Agent using a
Mojo dialer for the time period beginning June 11, 2015,
to present;" and
5. appointing Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Reese LLP, and Kaufman
P.A. as class counsel.
Mojo, PhoneBurner, Inc., and WAVV Communications LLC (formerly
known as Storm LLC) sold those leads and/or dialers to Realogy's
Agents and have produced in this case records of millions of calls
made by Realogy Agents using their companies' dialers. Plaintiffs'
expert analyzed and aggregated this data, concluding that (1)
Realogy Agents made 1,196,835 calls to 245,032 unique residential,
NDNCR-registered telephone numbers; (2) Realogy Agents made 264,104
prerecorded or artificial voice calls to 201,001 unique cellular or
residential landline telephone numbers, including 163,543 calls to
134,149 unique numbers initiated by Mojo; and (3) Realogy Agents
placed all of these calls and others at a time during which Realogy
failed to implement adequate policies and procedures for
maintaining an internal do not call list.
The Plaintiffs contend that their Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(“TCPA”) claims against the Realogy Defendants and Mojo are
well suited for class certification.
The Realogy Defendants own and operate the Coldwell Banker real
estate brokerage.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 23,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jqvnD0
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Mark Clifford, Esq.
Allison Parr, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com
hzavareei@tzlegal.com
mclifford@tzlegal.com
aparr@tzlegal.com
- and -
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 Northwest 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
George V. Granade, Esq.
REESE LLP
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
Los Angeles, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 393-0070
E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
REDWIRE CORP: Faces Securities Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------
Redwire Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
fiscal year ended September 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 1, 2022, that on December 17, 2021,
the company, its CEO, Peter Cannito, and its CFO, William Read,
were named as defendants in a putative class action complaint filed
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.
In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the company and
certain of its directors and officers made misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose material facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects, allegedly in violation of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. As relief, the plaintiffs sought, among other things,
compensatory damages.
Redwire Corporation develops and manufactures mission critical
space solutions and high reliability components for space economy.
REGAL CINEMAS: Zimmerman Sues Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA ZIMMERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGAL CINEMAS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 7:22-cv-02851 (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's alleged conduct of paying its manual workers, including
Plaintiff, every other week rather than on a weekly basis in
violation of New York Labor Law.
Ms. Zimmerman is a citizen of New York who resides in Beacon, New
York. She was employed by Defendant through December 2021 at a
Regal Cinemas located in New York. At least 25% of Plaintiff's job
responsibilities at Regal included manual labor, including tasks
such as preparing food, cleaning, attending the concessions stand,
and selling tickets to customers. She was paid every other week,
rather than weekly, during the entirety of her employment with
Defendant. Thus, for half of each biweekly pay period, Plaintiff
was injured in that she was temporarily deprived of money owed to
her, and she could not invest, earn interest on, or otherwise use
these monies that were rightfully hers. Accordingly, every day that
said money was not paid to her in a timely fashion, she lost the
time value of that money, the complaint asserts.
Regal Cinemas, Inc. owns and operates Regal Cinemas locations,
employing manual workers in the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
REGENCY HEALTH: Yaoxiao Li Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled YAOXIAO LI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. REGENCY HEALTH CARE, INC., d/b/a
Regency Healthcare Inc. d/b/a The Regency of Boro Park L.H.C.S.A.,
MARK MOSKOWITZ, ETHAN MOSKOWITZ, and ERIKA TOLEDO, Case No.
650078/2021, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, New York County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on April 6, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-02850 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay wages
and other violations of the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Regency Health Care, Inc., doing business as Regency Healthcare
Inc. and The Regency of Boro Park L.H.C.S.A., is a home health care
service provider in New York, New York. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew T. Williamson, Esq.
FORDHARRISON LLP
366 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 453-5937
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Finally OK'd in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re Resideo
Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
0:19-cv-02863-WMW-BRT (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Wilhelmina M.
Wright entered an order granting plaintiffs' motions for final
approval of class action settlement and attorneys' fees as
follows:
1. The Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement, is granted.
a. The Settlement Agreement and Plan of Allocation are
finally approved as being fair, reasonable and adequate
pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
b. The Settlement Class is finally certified, for
settlement purposes only, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
c. The Court confirms that the Notice provided to the
Settlement Class was the best notice practicable under
the circumstances and satisfied the requirements of
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due
process, and the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act.
d. All Settlement Class Members who timely requested
exclusion are excluded from the Settlement. The
Settlement Class Members who did not timely request
exclusion are hereby bound by the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.
2. The Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and
Awards, is granted.
a. The Court awards $13,750,000, plus any accrued
interest, in attorneys' fees to Plaintiffs' counsel.
b. The Court awards $349,575.75 in litigation expenses to
Plaintiffs' counsel.
c. The Court approves service awards of $12,500 to the
Gabelli Group and $10,000 to the Naya Group, for an
aggregate amount of $22,500, to compensate Lead
Plaintiffs for the time spent directly related to their
representation of the Settlement Class.
3. Without affecting the finality of this Order and the
judgment, the Court retains jurisdiction over this matter
for the purpose of resolving disputes related to the
interpretation, administration, implementation,
effectuation and enforcement of the Settlement.
The Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement dated August 17, 2021, which provides for a
complete dismissal with prejudice of the claims against Defendants
in this action, as well as a complete release of all claims that
could have been asserted against Defendants and the other Released
Defendant Parties by each other, by Plaintiffs, or by any other
member of the Settlement Class (Settlement).
The Settlement provides that Plaintiffs have agreed to settle all
claims in this Action in exchange for a cash payment of $55
million, which has been deposited into an interest-bearing escrow
account. The parties reached the settlement following settlement
negotiations between counsel that included mediation before a
United States District Judge.
On October 21, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiffs' unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of the Settlement. In doing so, on a
preliminary basis, the Court certified the Settlement Class,
approved the Settlement, and approved the proposed notice plan. To
date, no objections to the Settlement have been received and two
investors have asked to be excluded from the Settlement Class. On
January 27, 2022, the Court held a Settlement Hearing to determine
whether the Settlement should be finally approved.
Resideo is a publicly-traded U.S.-based company formed in 2018 out
of a spin-off from Honeywell. It provides room air temperature,
quality, and humidity control and security systems primarily in
residential dwellings in the U.S. and internationally.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O2snef at no extra charge.[CC]
REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Net Fund Distribution in Securities Suit OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: REVOLUTION LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-00980-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York granted the Lead Plaintiffs' motion for an order
approving distribution of the Net Settlement Fund in the action.
Having reviewed and considered all the materials and arguments
submitted in support of the motion, Judge Oetken granted the motion
in its entirety. His Order incorporates by reference the
definitions in the Stipulation of Settlement filed with the Court
on March 20, 2020, and all terms used therein will have the same
meanings as set forth in the Stipulation, unless otherwise set
forth therein.
Judge Oetken approved the administrative determinations of Epiq
Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., the Court-appointed Claims
Administrator, in accepting and rejecting the Proof of Claim and
Release forms.
The Net Settlement Fund established by the settlement of the Action
will be distributed to Authorized Claimants identified in Exhibits
B-1 and B-2 to the Declaration of Michael McGuinness in Support of
Motion for Authorization to Distribute Net Settlement Fund, at the
direction of the Lead Counsel, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pursuant to
the Stipulation, and the Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement
Fund set forth in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action that was distributed pursuant to the Court's Order
Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice.
Epiq's administrative determinations rejecting the ineligible or
otherwise deficient Claims, which are set forth in Exhibit B-3 of
the McGuinness Distribution Declaration, are approved. Such claims
may not receive any distributions from the Settlement Fund.
Any Claims or responses to deficiencies that are received after
July 14, 2021, are rejected as untimely and will not be accepted.
No further adjustments to Claim Forms received on or before July
14, 2021, that would result in an increased Recognized Loss may be
made after July 14, 2021.
All distribution checks will bear the notation "DEPOSIT PROMPTLY,
VOID AND SUBJECT TO RE-DISTRIBUTION IF NOT NEGOTIATED WITHIN 120
DAYS OF ISSUE DATE."
Consistent with the Plan of Allocation, after Epiq has made
reasonable and diligent efforts to have Authorized Claimants
negotiate their distribution checks, but no earlier than six months
after the Initial Distribution, the Lead Counsel, in consultation
with Epiq, will determine whether it is cost-effective to conduct a
second distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, in which any
amounts remaining in the Net Settlement Fund after the Initial
Distribution, after deducting Epiq's fees and expenses incurred in
connection with administering the Settlement for which it has not
yet been paid (including the estimated costs of such Second
Distribution), and after the payment of any Taxes, the costs of
preparing appropriate tax returns, and any escrow fees, will be
distributed to all Authorized Claimants in the Initial Distribution
who (i) cashed their Initial Distribution check; and (ii) would
receive at least $10 from such distribution based on their pro-rata
share of the remaining funds.
Additional re-distributions, after deduction of costs and expenses
as described, may occur thereafter, in an equitable and economical
fashion, until the Lead Counsel, in consultation with Epiq,
determine that further re-distribution would not be cost-effective.
If further re-distribution of the funds remaining in the Net
Settlement Fund is not feasible or economical to reallocate, the
remaining balance of the Net Settlement Fund will be donated to the
Investor Protection Trust, in accordance with paragraph 5.6 of the
Stipulation.
Epiq will be paid the sum of $192,414.44 from the Settlement Fund
for the fees and expenses it incurred as stated in the invoices
attached as Exhibit C to the McGuinness Distribution Declaration.
Epiq may destroy the paper copies of the Claim Forms and all
related documentation one year after the final distribution of the
Net Settlement Fund and may destroy electronic copies of the same
one year after all funds have been distributed from the Net
Settlement Fund.
All persons involved in the review, verification, calculation,
tabulation, or any other aspect of the processing of the Claims
submitted in the matter, or otherwise involved in the
administration or taxation of the Settlement Fund, including the
Lead Plaintiff, the Lead Counsel, and Epiq, are released and
discharged from any and all claims arising out of such involvement,
and any further claims against the Net Settlement Fund are barred
beyond the amount allocated to Authorized Claimants pursuant to the
Order.
The Court retains jurisdiction to consider any further applications
concerning the administration of the Settlement, and such other and
further relief as it deems appropriate. The Clerk is directed to
close ECF No. 90.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Distribution Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/mumuc6t7 from Leagle.com.
SCORES HOLDING: Summary Judgment Bids in De Oliveira Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LUISA SATOS DE OLIVEIRA, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCORES HOLDING
COMPANY INC.; CLUB AZURE LLC; ROBERT GANS; MARK S. YACKOW; HOWARD
ROSENBLUTH, Defendants, Case No. 18 Civ. 06769 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge George B. Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued a Memorandum Decision and Order ruling
that:
(1) the Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted to
the extent that it is held to be not liable to the
Plaintiff for a failure to provide a written wage
statement at the time of hiring (count 6) or adequate wage
statements (count 7) in violation of the Wage Theft
Prevention Act ("WTPA"), under New York Labor Law ("NYLL")
Section 195(1)(a) and 195(3); and
(2) the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted to
the extent that the Defendant is liable for a failure to
comply with NYLL's separate wage notification requirement,
failure to pay overtime and spread of hours wages, and
liquidated damages (counts 2, 3, 4, and 5).
On July 27, 2018, Plaintiff Luisa Satos De Oliveira ("Luisa" or
"Plaintiff") brought this action against Defendant Club Azure, LLC
(the "Club" or "Defendant") for violations under the Fair Labors
Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Laws ("NYLLs"). The
Plaintiff brings nine claims alleging that the Defendant failed to
pay her statutory minimum wages, overtimes wages, and spread of
hours wages; did not provide her accurate wage statements or the
requisite notices for taking tip credits; did not reimburse her for
equipment costs; and misappropriated tips. At the end of discovery,
the parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
I. Factual Background
The Club operates an adult entertainment establishment. Luisa
worked at the Club as a cocktail waitress from Oct. 20, 2017, to
March 19, 2018. Since Luisa was a food service worker, the Club
paid her a cash wage lower than the statutory minimum wage and
satisfied the difference through a tip credit. In 2017, the Club
paid the Plaintiff $7.50 per hour and the Club took a $3.50 tip
credit ($11/hr total). In 2018, the Club paid Plaintiff $8.65 per
hour and the Club took a $4.35 credit ($13/hr total).
However, after tips, Luisa actually "earned approximately $57.82
per hour in 2017 and approximately $60.59 per hour in 2018." The
Club never withheld tips from Luisa. Luisa generally worked 14 to
24 hours a week. Throughout her employment, she worked over 10
hours (10.1 hours) in one shift on Dec. 2, 2017. The Club did not
pay Luisa extra for working over ten hours. She also logged
overtime only once, totaling 41.5 hours, during the last week of
her employment. The Club did pay her an extra $15.15 per hour for
overtime pay.
When the Club hired Luisa, they did not provide her a written
notice regarding her rate of pay and the amount of tips the Club
planned to credit against her wages. However, the Club posted New
York State and Federal Labor Law posters prominently inside the
Club. The Posters provided basic background information to the
Club's employees regarding wage requirements for tipped workers,
including overtime fees. The Posters did not explain how much the
Club intended to pay Luisa or other employees in cash wages nor how
much tip credit the Club would claim. The parties dispute whether
the Club ever verbally told Luisa about its intentions on how it
planned to pay her. However, the Club did provide Luisa a wage
statement with each payment of wages that stated the rate and basis
of her pay. The Club also maintained a spreadsheet detailing the
amount of tips to be paid to Luisa, but Luisa contests whether she
was ever provided this information.
On July 27, 2018, Luisa filed a nine-count complaint against the
Club contending that the Club did not comply with the requirements
of the FLSA and NYLLs. Specifically, she alleged that the Club: (1)
failed to pay her the applicable minimum hourly rate pursuant to
the FLSA and NYLL (counts 1 and 3); (2) failed to pay her overtime
wages in violation of the FLSA and NYLL regulations (counts 2 and
4); (3) did not pay her spread of hours wages for time worked on
December 2, 2017 pursuant to NYLL (count 5); failed to provide
written notice as required by the Wage Theft Prevention Act
("WTPA") (count 6); failed to provide accurate wage statements as
required by the WTPA (count 7); did not reimburse her for
employment equipment costs as required by the FLSA and NYLL (count
8); and misappropriated tips in violation of NYLL.
Plaintiff Luisa also seeks liquidated damages for the Defendant's
alleged violations. On April 28, 2021, the Club moved for summary
judgment on all of the Plaintiff's claims, including any claim for
liquidated damages. The Plaintiff opposed the motion except as to
counts eight and nine, and simultaneously cross-moved for summary
judgment on all other claims.
II. The Defendant Failed to Provide Adequate Notice and Pay
Overtime and Spread of Hours Wages.
Judge Daniels notes that there is no dispute that the Club was able
to pay Luisa as a tipped worker under both the FLSA and NYLLs. The
Plaintiff does not dispute that she was actually paid at least
equivalent to the minimum wage, nor could she given the fact that
after tips she made roughly $57.82/hour in 2017 and $60.59/hour in
2018.
Instead, the parties contest whether the Club met the notice
requirements under the FLSA and NYLLs, and if not, whether there
are any exceptions the Club can avail itself of. The parties also
seek summary judgment as to whether the Club provided adequate
overtime pay, failed to pay spread of hours wages, did not furnish
accurate wage statements, and whether liquidated damages are
available.
A. There was a Failure to Provide Adequate Notice Under NYLL
To claim a tip credit, both the FLSA and NYLLs require that
employers provide employees notice that it intends to claim a tip
credit against the employee's cash wages.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Club failed to provide adequate
notice under both the FLSA and NYLL.
Judge Daniels holds that it is incontrovertible that the Club did
not provide written notices as required by NYLLs. This is
sufficient to establish the Club's liability as to whether it was
legally able to pay the Plaintiff by claiming a tip credit. There
is a dispute as to whether there was adequate notice under
FLSA—the parties are in contention over whether the Defendant
verbally related its intention to pay the Plaintiff through a cash
wage and supplemental tip credit.
Thus, the failure to provide notice under NYLL is sufficient to
establish liability here, Judge Daniels holds.
B. There is a Valid Exception for Defendant's WTPA Violation.
The WTPA, an amendment to the NYLL, also requires that an employer
provide an employee written notice at the time of hire, which
includes information regarding the rate of pay and any tip credits
claimed.
Judge Daniels notes that the record clearly demonstrates, including
through pay stubs, that the Plaintiff was timely paid well above
the statutory minimum wage throughout her employment. Therefore,
the Club is not liable for a failure to provide an initial hiring
notice pursuant to NYLL Section 195(1)(a).
C. Defendant failed to pay Adequate Overtime Wages and Spread of
Hours Wages
Under both federal and New York law, an employer must pay overtime
pay at the rate of at least one and a half "the regular rate at
which he is employed" for any hours worked in excess of forty
hours.
The Plaintiff worked a total of 41.5 hours for the work week of
March 13, 2018, to March 19, 2018. The Club paid her $15.15 for the
extra 1.5 hours. The regular rate of pay in 2018 was $13/hr. Thus,
the correct amount should have been $19.50/hour. The Plaintiff's
summary judgment motion as to overtime pay is granted and the club
must pay the unpaid difference between $15.15/hour and $19.50/hour
for a total of 1.5 hours.
New York also provides that an employee is entitled to an
additional hour's pay at the basic minimum hourly wage rate before
allowances, in addition to the minimum wages otherwise required for
each day in which the spread of hours exceeds ten hours. The
Defendant's own submissions show that, albeit only slightly, the
Plaintiff did work for approximately 10.1 hours on Dec. 2, 2017.
The Defendant did not pay extra for this extra 0.1 hour. Therefore,
the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted as to her
spread of hours claim for the missing 0.1 wages.
D. There should be an award of liquated damages
Since the Defendants are liable for unpaid overtime wages, spread
of hours wages, and a failure to comply with the NYLL notice
requirement, the Club may be subject to liquidated damages, Judge
Daniels holds.
The Defendant's position is that it can satisfy the difficult
burden because of its reliance on a Human Resource Manager's
erroneous advice about the Club's legal requirements. The HR
manager told the supervisor onboarding the Plaintiff that the Club
no longer needed a written notice. Notwithstanding the Club's
historical practice of providing written notices, labor posters,
and alleged verbal communications about its wage payment
intentions, the supervisor thought that there was no reason to
disbelieve the HR manager.
The Defendant again relies on dicta in Inclan v. New York
Hospitality Grp., Inc., 95 F.Supp.3d 490, 497 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) and
Garcia v. JonJon Deli Grocery Corp., No. 13 Civ. 8835 9AT), 2015 WL
4940107, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2015), which suggest an inference
that reliance on others advice may be adequate to show good faith
that it took active steps to ascertain the dictates of the FLSA.
The Plaintiff seeks summary judgment on the argument that the
Defendant's actions are simply not enough.
Judge Daniels finds that the Plaintiff is correct that the
Defendant's actions do not satisfy its high burden of overcoming
the norm of double damages. The Club ostensibly knew it needed to
inform the Plaintiff about its intentions on how it planned to pay
her based on its own historical practices, posters, and alleged
conversations with the Plaintiff. Instead of taking actions to
confirm any new practices, the onboarding supervisor blindly relied
upon the HR's new advice.
The Club provides no evidence that it took steps to ensure its new
practices comply with the law by at least seeking advice from
external professionals, Judge Daniels notes. This is not a showing
of "good faith," and is at least a significant failure to establish
objectively reasonable grounds for thinking that their practices
comported with the law. Therefore, the Defendant is liable for
liquidated damages at least for unpaid overtime wages and failure
to comply with the NYLL notice requirement.
III. Conclusion
The Plaintiff's motion is granted to the extent that the Defendant
is liable for a failure to provide adequate wage notification
(count 3), pay overtime wages (counts 2 and 4), and pay spread of
hours wages (count 5). The Defendant's motion is granted to the
extent that the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant failed to
provide a written wage statement at the time of hiring (count 6)
and accurate wage statements (count 7) as required by the WTPA are
dismissed. There are no remaining triable claims. The Clerk of
Court is directed to close the motion accordingly.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated
March 24, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2pm6yak5 from
Leagle.com.
SCOTTS COMPANY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Galanti Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA GALANTI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE SCOTTS COMPANY, LLC d/b/a
MIRACLE-GRO, Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-60708-WPD (S.D. Fla.,
April 11, 2022) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls.
THE SCOTTS COMPANY, LLC d/b/a MIRACLE-GRO manufactures and markets
fertilizers, pest controls, plant foods, gardening soils, grass
seed, and other products in North America and Europe. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
-and-
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
SELLAS LIFE: Settlement in Securities Wins Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------
SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2022, that the
company was named defendant in a consolidated class action alleging
that Galena and certain of Galena's former officers and directors
failed to disclose that certain of Galena's promotional practices
were allegedly improper. The case has now been settled.
Certain putative shareholder securities class action complaints
originally filed against the company's predecessor, Galena, in 2017
which alleged, among other things, that Galena and certain of
Galena's former officers and directors failed to disclose that
certain of Galena's promotional practices were allegedly improper
and that these alleged failures rendered Galena's statements about
its business misleading.
The actions were consolidated with lead plaintiffs named by the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In 2021, the
defendants reached a settlement with the plaintiffs in this action,
which was preliminarily approved by the court and which was fully
covered by the company's directors and officers insurance policy
applicable to this case. The company received final court approval
on February 24, 2022.
SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc. is a late-stage clinical
biopharmaceutical company based in New York.
SEQUANS COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Consolidated Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sequans Communications S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2022, that it settled a
consolidated class action filed against the company alleging that
the company violated the U.S. federal securities laws.
In August 2017, two securities class action lawsuits were filed,
which were consolidated into a single lawsuit in September 2017,
alleging violations of the U.S. federal securities laws by the
company, the company's President and CEO, and the company's Chief
Financial Officer.
The plaintiffs asserted claims primarily based on purported
misrepresentations regarding Sequans' revenue recognition policy in
its Annual Reports on Form 20-F for the fiscal years ended 2015 and
2016. An amended complaint was filed in April 2018, and the company
and the individual defendants subsequently filed a motion to
dismiss.
On September 30, 2019, the Court issued a decision dismissing the
claims against the company's CFO, but permitting the claims against
the company and its CEO to proceed. After a second mediation
session in April 2020, the parties agreed to a settlement for an
amount of $2.75 million, which was approved by the court on
September 28, 2020 and paid.
Sequans Communications S.A. is a designer, developer and supplier
of cellular semiconductor solutions based in France.
SHIRTSPACE: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ShirtSpace. The case
is styled as Christopher Loadholt, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. ShirtSpace, Case No. 1:22-cv-02870-ALC
(S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
ShirtSpace -- https://www.shirtspace.com/ -- sells over 6,000 blank
apparel styles that are perfect for uniforms, charity events and
garment decorating like screen printing, DTG, tie-dye and
more.[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
SHOPIFY INC: Faces Fresh Class-Action Over 2020 Ledger Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
coingeek.com reports that a 2020 data breach in which hackers
accessed information for over a million Ledger users is once again
at the heart of a class-action lawsuit. This time, the plaintiffs
are going after Canadian e-commerce giant Shopify in connection
with its role in the breach.
Between April and June 2020, attackers were reportedly able to
access Ledger's online store on which customers order their
hardware wallets. They managed to access and steal personally
identifiable information for over 270,000 users who had made an
order for a Ledger wallet. They also accessed information on over
one million other users who had subscribed to the company's
newsletter.
Ledger users have now filed a fresh class-action lawsuit against
Shopify and TaskUs, an outsourcing company that provided customer
support services for Shopify.
The lawsuit accuses the two companies of "failure to exercise
reasonable care in securing and safeguarding consumer information
in connection with a massive 2020 data breach impacting Ledger." It
claims that the data breach led to the public release of personally
identifiable information (PII) that includes full names, email
addresses, postal addresses, and telephone numbers.
As the plaintiffs observe, while blockchain transactions are
publicly visible, they can't be traced back to an individual
without more information. The breach made this information
available to the world, making Ledger customers easy targets for
scammers who have been targeting them with phishing campaigns ever
since.
"Customers lost money in phishing attacks and faced threats of
physical violence or blackmail if they did not transfer
crypto-assets to criminals around the world. Using the customer
shipping addresses that Shopify and TaskUs failed to protect,
hackers threatened to enter Ledger customers' homes and assault
them if they did not provide payment," the lawsuit alleges.
While the data breach was bad enough, Ledger and Shopify made it
worse by handling it in the worst possible way. Ledger at first
denied the breach until December 2020, when the hackers published
the data publicly. Even then, it claimed that less than 10,000
customers had been affected, only to retract its statement after
more data was published publicly.
The plaintiffs are asking the District Court of Delaware for an
award of actual damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages,
and statutory penalties, among other punitive measures.
This isn't the first class-action lawsuit against Shopify and
Ledger for the data breach. In April last year, the first lawsuit
was filed in California, claiming that the two "negligently
allowed, recklessly ignored, and then intentionally sought to cover
up" the breach. [GN]
SOURSE INC: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sourse Inc. The case
is styled as Lynnette Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Sourse Inc. doing business as:
Sourse, Case No. 1:22-cv-02923 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sourse -- https://trysourse.com/ -- is a food tech company that
aims to set high standards for efficacy and sustainability in the
category.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
SOUTHERN FIDELITY: Thacker Files Bid for Class Cert. Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER THACKER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated within the State of
Louisiana, v. SOUTHERN FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:21-cv-02313-SM-KWR (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order authorizing discovery related to class
certification.
Southern Fidelity Company operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 23, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xkwBIg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Walter J. Leger, Jr., Esq.
Franklin G. Shaw, Esq.
Matthew S. Landry, Esq.
Mary W. Smith, Esq.
LEGER & SHAW
935 Gravier Street, Suite 2150
Telephone: (504) 588-9043
Facsimile: (504) 588-9980
- and -
David W. Ardoin, Esq.
Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
Ryan P. Monsour, Esq.
Matthew D. Ory, Esq.
Barry W. Sartin Jr., Esq.
AMO TRIAL LAWYERS, LLC
3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Ste. 590
Metairie, LA 70001
Telephone: (504) 356-0110
ST. LOUIS COUNTY JAIL: Calvin Burke Seeks to Certify Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Calvin Burke on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. St. Louis County Jail
(SLCJ), DR, Sam Page, Scott Anders, Sgt. Thompson, Major Kramer,
Major McKnight, Medical Director Allen, Unknown Food Supervisor,
and Unknown Nurse(s), Case No. 4:22-cv-00351-SEP (E.D. MO.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a Rule 23
classes of:
"All past, present, and future prisoners who beginning five
years before the filing of this complaint who entered into
SLCJ and were exposed to constant illumination for 14 years
or more in either a holiday cell or housing unit cell or a
combination of both resulting in sleep deprivation and other
harmful health risk factors;"
"All past, present, and future prisoners who beginning five
years before the filing of this complaint who entered into
St. Louis County Jail and were placed in a cell(s) designed
for a single occupant and forced to sleep on the floor in a
boat facing either the toilet or door which created a safety
and health issue such as (1) possible exposure human waste
and other sanitation hazards; (2) tripping, failing and fire
hazards from boat being in middle of floor; and (3) emergency
button and door unaccessable because of boat;" and
"All past, present, and future prisoners who beginning five
years before the filing of this complaint who entered into
St. Louis County Jail and were exposed or possibly to COVID-
19 or contracted COVID-19 while in SLCJ or who were not
tested before being placed into general population or was not
tested after being in contact with person(s) who tested
positive for COVID-19."
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 24,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JvcDwJ
at no extra charge.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]
TA OPERATING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baker Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH BAKER, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TA OPERATING LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01061-STA-jay (W.D., Tenn. April 6, 2022) seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Baker was employed by the Defendant as service advisor.
TA OPERATING LLC, doing business as Travel Centers of America, owns
and operates gasoline service stations. The Company offers fuel,
truck maintenance, roadside, repair, truck parking, and restaurant
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
TALEN ENERGY: Class Cert Opposition Continued to April 29
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNETTE M. DURNACK, et
al., v. RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE OF TALEN ENERGY CORPORATION, et
al., Case No. 5:20-cv-05975-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey
L. Schmehl entered an order that:
(1) Defendants' deadline to file their Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be
continued through April 29, 2022; and
(2) Plaintiffs shall file their Reply, if any, by May 20,
2022. The Parties agree that no Party will be prejudiced
by this short continuance.
The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on
January 31, 2022.
On February 14, 2022, this Court approved the Parties' joint
stipulation to re-set the schedule for opposition and reply to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and continued
Defendants' deadline to file their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion
through April 15, 2022 and Plaintiffs' deadline to file their
Reply, if any, by May 6, 2022.
Talen Energy is an independent power producer founded in 2015. It
was formed when the competitive power generation business of PPL
Corporation was spun off and immediately combined with competitive
generation businesses owned by private equity firm Riverstone
Holdings.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v7Kff3 at no extra charge.[CC]
TAPESTRY INC: Brooks' Bid to Appoint Interim Class Counsel Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAPESTRY, INC. d/b/a KATE
SPADE, a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00156-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy
L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Interim
Class Counsel.
I. Background
The Plaintiff, who is legally blind, can only experience the
internet through screen-reading software. The Defendant operates a
website that provides consumers with access to information
regarding women's handbags, wallets, clothing, shoes, accessories,
and more. The Plaintiff alleges she cannot use the Defendant's
website because it is incompatible with screen-reading software.
The Plaintiff filed the action on Jan. 26, 2021, alleging
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The Defendant filed an answer
on Feb. 19, 2021. On March 12, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion
to strike the Defendant's affirmative defenses, which is still
pending and will be addressed in a separate order. On March 19,
2021, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion to appoint interim
class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(g)(3).
II. Analysis
The Plaintiff moves for an order appointing Thiago M. Coelho as the
interim class counsel. She argues the Court should appoint interim
counsel for the following reasons: (1) the counsel has done a
significant amount of work identifying and investigating the claims
in this action; (2) the counsel is experienced in handling this
type of class action; (3) the counsel is knowledgeable about the
applicable law; (4) the counsel has committed resources towards
representing the class; and (5) there is a competing non-class
action in the Southern District of Florida (Petersen v. Tapestry,
LLC, Case No. 0:20-cv-62081-RS).
In opposition, the Defendant argues the Court should deny the
Plaintiff's motion because the competing lawsuit in the Southern
District of Florida has since been dismissed, the Plaintiff fails
to identify prejudice if her motion is denied, and she fails to
submit any evidence demonstrating the adequacy of the class
counsel.
Judge Nunley agrees with the Defendant that the Plaintiff has not
shown interim counsel is necessary to protect the interests of the
putative class. The Southern District of Florida court closed
Petersen -- the sole competing lawsuit Plaintiff cites -- on April
9, 2021, after the parties stipulated to dismissal. As such, there
is no indication rival cases exist that might justify appointing
interim counsel. Further, the Plaintiff fails to provide any
evidence that the counsel will suffer prejudice if the motion is
denied or that the counsel meets the adequacy requirements of Rule
23(g)(1)(A). Lastly, it bears mentioning that the Plaintiff did not
file a reply to address the Defendant's arguments.
Accordingly, Judge Nunley denies the Plaintiff's motion and "will
wait to consider the adequacy of representation and appointment of
the class counsel until such time as the Plaintiff moves for class
certification."
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Nunley denied the Plaintiff's
Motion for Appointment of Interim Class Counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/436vvmmn from Leagle.com.
TARGET CORP: Rodrigues Sues Over Mislabeled Fish Oil Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-02982 (S.D.N.Y., April 12, 2022) is an action seeking
redress against Defendant's alleged deceptive practices associated
with the advertising, labeling and sale of its Up & Up 100% Wild
Alaskan 1000 mg Fish Oil dietary supplement.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that contrary to what is
represented on the label, however, this Product is neither Wild
Alaskan, nor is it Fish Oil. Rather, it is a lab synthesized
solution – resulting from a chemical process known as
trans-esterification, whereby an industrial solvent and ethanol are
used to molecularly alter and substantially transform otherwise
unmarketable fish waste into a consumable product known as a fatty
acid ethyl ester, which the Defendant deceptively pawns off on the
unsuspecting public as fish oil.
While the label conjures and purposefully promotes imagery of fish
being caught in the wilds of Alaska, and immediately pressed for
their Omega-3 rich oil to maintain "freshness," – nothing could
be further from the truth. The Plaintiff would not have purchased
the Product, or would have purchased the Product on different
terms, had he known the truth, says the suit.
Target Corporation operates general merchandise discount stores.
The Company focuses on merchandising operations which includes
general merchandise and food discount stores and a fully integrated
online business. Target also offers credit to qualified applicants
through its branded proprietary credit cards. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael D. Braun, Esq.
KUZYK LAW, LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (213) 401-4100
Facsimile: (213) 401-0311
Email: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com
TENARIS SA: Shareholder Suit in NY Court Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Tenaris S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 31, 2022, that class action lawsuits were filed
against the company alleging that the company and other defendants
inflated the Tenaris share price by failing to disclose that the
nationalization proceeds received by Ternium S.A., a producer of
flat steel with operating facilities in Mexico, Brazil, Argentina,
Colombia, the southern United States and Central America in which
Tenaris held an 11.46% stake.
Two putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On April 29,
2019, the court consolidated the complaints into a single case,
captioned "In re Tenaris S.A. Securities Litigation," and appointed
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.
On July 19, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Tenaris securities during
the putative class period of May 1, 2014, through December 5, 2018.
The individual defendants named in the complaint are Tenaris's
Chairman and CEO and Tenaris's former CFO.
The complaint alleges that during the class period, the Company and
the individual defendants inflated the Tenaris share price by
failing to disclose that the nationalization proceeds received by
Ternium when Ternium's Venezuelan subsidiary, Sidor, was
expropriated by Venezuela were received or expedited as a result of
allegedly improper payments made to Argentine officials.
The complaint does not specify the damages that plaintiff is
seeking. On October 9, 2020, the court granted in part and denied
in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court partially
granted and partially denied the motion to dismiss the claims
against the Company and its Chairman and CEO. In addition, the
court granted the motions to dismiss as to all claims against
Tenaris' mother company, Techint, and Tenaris's former CFO. The
case is now proceeding based on the claims that survived the motion
to dismiss.
Tenaris S.A. is a manufacturer and supplier of steel pipe products
and related services for the energy industry and other industries
based in Luxembourg.
TERRA ORIGIN: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Terra Origin Inc. The
case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Terra Origin Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02914 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Terra Origin -- https://terraorigin.com/ -- offers a range
nutraceutical supplements featuring ingredients supported by
science that offer many internal and external health benefits.[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
TOYOTA MOTOR: Nazos Sues Over FJ Cruiser Vehicles' Frame Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELLIOT NAZOS, CHRISTINE BLIGHT, JACK PERRY, PATRICIA LOUGHNEY,
THOMAS PASTORE, BRIAN HALE, TIMOTHY DOTSON, EMILY BARBOUR, JILL
SILVERNALE and KYLE BLUMIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
and TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-02214 (C.D. Cal., April 4, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and
violations of consumer fraud and deceptive business practices acts
in various states in the U.S.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to disclose a
dangerous defect in the frames of its model year 2007-2014 FJ
Cruiser vehicles, as well as Toyota's contemporaneous
misrepresentations regarding the true nature of those frames. The
defect caused excessive corrosion in the Class vehicles which poses
a safety threat to both drivers and occupants of the vehicles.
Toyota has long been aware of the frame defect in the Class
vehicles, as well as the safety hazard caused by the excessively
corroded frames, but failed to disclose them to its customers.
Further, Toyota has not issued a recall to inspect and repair the
Class vehicles or offered to reimburse owners of the Class vehicles
for costs incurred to identify and repair the defect.
Toyota Motor Corporation is an automobile manufacturer,
headquartered in Toyota City, Aichi Prefecture, Japan.
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. is an authorized importer and
distributor of Toyota motor vehicles in the United States,
headquartered in Torrance, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park E #1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 438-5355
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and –
Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
E-mail: alperstein@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
cardoso@kolawyers.com
- and –
Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
Joshua D. Samra, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI AND AULD LLP
555 12th Street, Suite 1600
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (415) 445-4003
Facsimile: (415) 445-4020
E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
jsamra@bfalaw.com
- and –
Steven G. Calamusa, Esq.
Geoff S. Stahl, Esq.
Rachel A. Bentley, Esq.
GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A.
4114 Northlake Boulevard
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Telephone: (561) 799-5070
Facsimile: (561) 799-4050
E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com
gstahl@fortheinjured.com
rbentley@fortheinjured.com
- and –
Dennis O. Cohen, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DENNIS O. COHEN, PLLC
157 13th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11215
Telephone: (646) 859-8855
E-mail: dennis@denniscohenlaw.com
TRUMAN MEARS: Justin Erskine Seeks to Certify Rule 23 class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Justin Erskine, et al., v.
Truman Mears, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00381-CFC (D. Del.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a Rule 23
class.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xkDVmX at no extra charge.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]
ULTA SALON: Scheduling Order Entered in Jones Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIE JONES v. ULTA SALON,
COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-05198-HB (E.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Harvey Bartle III entered a scheduling order:
1. Class action discovery shall proceed forthwith and continue
in such a manner as will assure that all requests for, and
responses to, discovery will be served, noticed, and
completed by August 1, 2022;
2. The Plaintiff shall file on or before September 1, 2022,
her motion for class certification and supporting brief;
3. The Defendant shall file and serve on or before October 3,
2022, any brief in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for
class certification;
4. The Plaintiff shall file on or before October 13, 2022, any
reply in support of her motion for class; and
5. The court will schedule another status conference with
counsel after it decides the motion.
Ulta Beauty, formerly known as Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance
Inc. and before 2000 as Ulta3, is an American chain of beauty
stores headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois.
A copy of the Court's orderdated March 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rfdJqk at no extra charge.[CC]
UNILEVER UNITED: Joint Bid to Continue Class Cert Deadlines OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE KRAUSE-PETTAI,
SCOTT GRIMM, STEVE TABU LANIER, AND CHRISTYSTEVENS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNILEVER UNITED
STATES, INC. AND DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:20-cv-01672-LL-BLM (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara L. Major entered an order granting
joint motion to continue certain deadlines, including plaintiffs'
deadline to move for class certification, and to vacate the
mandatory settlement conference as follows:
Current New
Deadline Deadline
-- Expert Designation: April 15, 2022 May 6, 2022
-- Supplemental Expert May 13, 2022 June 3, 2022
Designation:
-- File Motion for Class May 13, 2022 July 29, 2022
Certification:
-- Fact Discovery: May 27, 2022 June 24, 2022
-- Expert Disclosures: June 24, 2022 July 29, 2022
-- Contradictory/Rebuttal July 22, 2022 Aug. 16, 2022
Disclosures:
-- Expert Discovery: Sept. 2, 2022 No Change
-- Pretrial Motions Sept. 30, 2022 No Change
Unilever manufactures personal care products.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xkFjGb at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED EQUITABLE: Ill. App. Affirms Dismissal of Bond's Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ASHLEY BOND, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED EQUITABLE
INSURANCE GROUP, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 1-21-0732 (Ill.
App.), the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second
Division, affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the
Plaintiff's complaint.
I. Introduction
After her car was destroyed in an accident, Plaintiff Bond filed a
complaint in the circuit court alleging that her insurer, Defendant
United Equitable breached the insurance contract by failing to
include sales tax and title fees when it calculated her payout. The
Plaintiff argues that those fees are necessarily incurred when a
vehicle is a total loss and that her policy and Illinois law
entitle her to payment for those fees. The Plaintiff seeks to
represent similarly situated individuals in a class action against
the Defendant.
The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the Plaintiff
failed to follow the required procedure to receive reimbursement
for the taxes and fees from the insurer. The trial court determined
that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the relevant requirements
to obligate the insurance company to pay the taxes and fees and
dismissed plaintiff's complaint. The Plaintiff appeals.
II. Background
Plaintiff Bond was involved in a car accident and her vehicle was
determined to be a total loss. Following the accident, she made a
claim to her insurer, Defendant United Equitable. It is undisputed
that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the proper amount for her
loss, except the Defendant did not pay for the sums in dispute in
the case -- the sales tax, title transfer fees, and tag transfer
fees. Those are the costs that the Plaintiff claims she would
necessarily incur upon replacing her vehicle.
To operate a vehicle in Illinois, Illinois law requires vehicle
owners to secure a title for the vehicle and register the vehicle.
The current fee for titling a vehicle is $95. The fee for
transferring the registration for a vehicle is $25. The State of
Illinois currently imposes sales tax of at least 6.25% on the
purchase of a vehicle. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant
breached its insurance contract with her when it failed to include
those amounts in her payout.
Under the insurance policy at issue in the case, in the event of a
total loss, the Defendant promised to pay "the cost of replacing
the owned automobile." The Defendant's obligation under the policy
is limited to a maximum of the actual cash value of the insured
vehicle. "Actual cash value" is not specifically defined in the
policy. The policy does not specifically mention reimbursement for
sales tax or title fees in the context of paying a total loss
claim.
The Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff that is required by
the Department of Insurance's regulations. Included in that notice
is the regulation that details the steps an insured can take to
obtain reimbursement for sales tax and title fees upon replacing
the insured vehicle. The insured has to actually replace the
vehicle and then provide documentation of the replacement to the
insurer. The notice also explains that if the enumerated steps are
not followed, the insurer is not required to pay sales tax and
title fees. The Plaintiff never notified the Defendant that she
replaced her vehicle, and she did not seek the payment of sales tax
and title fees from the Defendant within the time period set forth
in the regulation.
The Plaintiff filed the complaint in the case seeking payment for
sales tax and title fees. She contends that those costs are
encompassed within the "actual cash value" of her vehicle because
those costs are necessarily incurred to replace her vehicle. The
Plaintiff seeks to represent similarly situated individuals in a
class action against the Defendant.
The Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the
Plaintiff's claims were defeated by Illinois law and by certain
indisputable evidence. The trial court issued a written ruling in
which it dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. The
Plaintiff now appeals.
III. Analysis
The Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of her complaint. Her complaint
was dismissed on the Defendant's motion, and the motion was brought
under section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS
5/2-619 (West 2020)). The purpose of a section 2-619 motion to
dismiss is to dispose of issues of law and easily proved issues of
fact at the outset of the litigation. Although a section 2-619
motion to dismiss admits the legal sufficiency of a complaint, it
raises defects, defenses, or some other affirmative matter
appearing on the face of the complaint or established by external
submissions, that defeat the Plaintiff's claim.
The Appellate Court reviews the trial court's decision to grant a
motion to dismiss de novo. It concludes that the specific and
unambiguous terms of the regulation targeted directly at the issue
presented in the case control the disposition. If the insured does
not take the steps outlined in the regulation, the Department of
Insurance has dictated that the insurer "shall not be required to
reimburse the insured for the sales taxes or transfer or title
fees."
If the Appellate Court were to find in the Plaintiff's favor, it
would be specifically contradicting the mandatory language in the
regulation. The regulation, in clear and obvious plain language,
provides that insurers "shall not be required to reimburse the
insured for the sales taxes or transfer or title fees" if the
insured fails to submit documentation concerning the purchase of a
replacement vehicle within the allotted time. As the Plaintiff
acknowledges, the regulation applies specifically to total loss
claims, where the insurer has opted to pay actual cash value. If
actual cash value always meant that sales tax and title fees were
automatically payable, as the Plaintiff argues, then almost the
whole regulation becomes meaningless surplusage.
In addition, nothing in the parties' policy goes beyond the general
actual cash value standard contemplated by the regulation to give
the Plaintiff more coverage than any other insured who is entitled
to receive actual cash value and who is subject to this generally
applicable regulation. The regulation is directed at situations
just as the one presented in the case. Nothing in the Plaintiff's
policy entitles her to surpass the regulatory requirements and
secure automatic payment for sales tax and title fees in spite of
the regulation's clear requirements.
The Department of Insurance's administrative regulations require
insurers to provide notice to the insured about the steps the
insured is required to take if she wants to receive payment for
sales tax and title fees. Unrebutted evidence was submitted that
defendant provided the required notice of the procedure to the
Plaintiff. The unrebutted evidence further showed that she did not
comply with the procedure to entitle her to payment. The Defendant,
therefore, established that the Plaintiff is not entitled to
payment for the sales tax and title fees she seeks in the case. The
trial court correctly dismissed the complaint.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3dy89ce4 from Leagle.com.
UNITED STEEL: Bid to Revisit 5/4/2021 Order in Verso Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VERSO CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs v. UNITED STEEL,
PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED
INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO/CLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-0006 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Walter H.
Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Western Division, denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration
and in the Alternative for an Amended Order Granting Right to
Appeal.
I. Introduction
Plaintiffs Verso Corp. and Verso Health and Welfare Benefit Plan,
have filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's May 4, 2021,
Decision and Entry. In that Decision and Entry, the Court sustained
a motion for reconsideration filed by Defendant United Steel, Paper
and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and
Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC's ("the USW" or
"Defendant"), ordered USW and the Plaintiffs to arbitrate Verso's
decision to eliminate certain healthcare benefits for its pre-65
retirees class-wide and required the Defendant to secure the
consent of each retiree it will represent prior to the
arbitration.
In the alternative, the Plaintiffs' Motion seeks certification of
an immediate interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).
II. Background
In August 2017, Verso announced the elimination of certain
healthcare benefits for union-represented employees who retired
prior to age 65 from Verso, or one of its predecessors, between
Dec. 21, 2012, and Dec. 31, 2017. Following this announcement, USW
filed grievances for "about 178 employees who retired under the
then-in-force" 2012 Master Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA").
Thereafter, on Jan. 8, 2019, Verso filed suit, a Declaratory
Judgment action.
The Complaint, which included class action allegations, sought a
declaratory judgment that its elimination of retiree healthcare
benefits did not violate the Labor-Management Relations Act
("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 185(a), the applicable bargaining
agreements and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132. The named Defendants consisted
of six unions, including USW, and 12 retired individuals from Verso
and its predecessor company.
In response to the Complaint, five separate motions to dismiss were
filed, and USW filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. As a result of
voluntary dismissals, and the Court's Decision and Entry sustaining
the five motions to dismiss and overruling USW's Motion to Compel
Arbitration, only USW and two other unions remained as Defendants.
On April 10, 2020, USW filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court's denial of its Motion to Compel Arbitration. It argued that
the 2012 Master CBA governs "the three USW-represented bargaining
units to the separate local CBAs setting terms specific to each
plant." As such, the Master CBA makes all contract disputes at the
three Verso mills in Wisconsin, Michigan and Maryland subject to
the "arbitration processes" of the local CBAs.
On May 4, 2021, the Court sustained USW's Motion for
Reconsideration. In that ruling, the Court (1) considered the
grievances filed by the local unions concerning the elimination of
certain healthcare benefits for the pre-65 Verso retirees; (2)
examined the grievance and arbitration processes in the USW-Verso
collective bargaining agreements ("CBAs") for the Central Wisconsin
Mill in Wisconsin, the Escanaba Mill in Michigan and the Luke Mill
in Maryland and; (3) reviewed the applicable case law, including
the Sixth Circuit's recent decision in USW v. LLFlex, LLC, 852
Fed.Appx. 891 (6th Cir. 2021). Following this analysis, the Court
held that the Plaintiffs and Defendant were required to arbitrate
the grievances class-wide and that prior to the arbitration, the
USW must obtain consent from each of the potential 178 affected
pre-65 Verso retirees it intends to represent at the arbitration.
The Plaintiffs move for reconsideration of the May 4, 2021,
Decision and Entry, contending that the Court committed two errors
of law. First, they assert that the "structure of the grievance
procedure" found in the three local CBAs is "forceful evidence"
that the "Parties did not intend to arbitrate retiree-related
disputes." Second, they argue that the Court's order requiring the
USW to obtain consent from the retirees is "class-wide arbitration"
to which Verso did not agree.
Alternatively, the Plaintiffs request that the Court amends the May
4, 2021, Decision and Entry and certify these two issues pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).
III. Discussion
A. Arbitration of Retiree-Related Health Disputes
In the May 4, 2021, the Court found that USW, as a party to the
2012 Master CBA, was a party to the grievance and arbitration
processes set forth in the three local CBAs. It also found that the
language used in these sections of the three CBAs was "broad."
Importantly, the three local CBAs do not exclude arbitration of
retirement healthcare disputes and, as the Plaintiffs stated in
their Complaint, healthcare benefits are within the "substantive
scope" of the three local CBAs. Applying "the presumption of
arbitrability" and finding that there was no "positive assurance"
that the grievance and arbitration processes excluded a dispute
involving retirees and healthcare coverage to overcome this
presumption, and further considering the relevant Sixth Circuit
authority in Cleveland Electric v. UWU, 440 F.3d 809, 818 (6th Cir.
2006) and USW v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 474 F.3d 271, 281-282
(6th Cir. 2007), the Court held that arbitration was required.
The Plaintiffs argue that a clear error of law exists in the May 4,
2021, Decision and Entry based upon the "structure" of the
grievance and arbitration processes in the three local CBAs. In
support of this argument, they cite to Fletcher v. Honeywell,
Int'l, Inc., 207 F.Supp.3d 793 (S.D. Ohio 2016) (Rice, J.) and USW
v. LLFlex, LLC, 852 Fed.Appx. 891 (6th Cir. 2021).
However, Judge Rice holds that the Plaintiffs' reliance on these
cases is misplaced. He explains that while there are similarities
in the grievance and arbitration processes in Fletcher and the
three local CBAs at issue in the case, the Plaintiffs ignore an
important difference: The Plaintiffs who filed suit in Fletcher
were four individual retirees and were not parties to the CBA. This
difference is important because the grievance and arbitration
provisions in the Fletcher CBA provided that "the term 'grievance'
means any dispute between the Company and the union, or between the
Company and any employee or group of employees, concerning the
effect, interpretation, application, claim of breach, or violation
of this agreement."
In addition, there was no "broad" language in the LLFlex CBAs and
the retiree benefits in LLFlex were determined to be "not within
the CBA's 'substantive scope.'" Lacking the "'positive assurance
that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation
that covers the asserted dispute' regarding those benefits, the
Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court, found that the CBA's
arbitration clause was "materially different from arbitration
clauses that we have recognized as 'broad'" and did not require the
employer to arbitrate the grievance concerning retiree health care
benefits.
Because the Plaintiffs' have failed to establish any clear error of
law concerning the arbitrability of their elimination of the pre-65
retirees' healthcare, their Motion for Reconsideration on this
issue is overruled.
B. Arbitration on a Class-wide Basis
In addition to ordering arbitration, the May 4, 2021, Decision and
Entry required that "before taking the grievances filed by USW to
the arbitration," the Verso retirees must consent to the USW's
representation. "If, and only if, such consent is shown, the claims
of the retirees are arbitrable." In requiring consent from the
retirees, the Court cited to Cleveland Electric, 440 F.3d at 817,
and Rossetto v. Pabst Brewing Co., Inc., 128 F.3d 538, 539 (7th
Cir.1997).
The Plaintiffs argue that the Court's order requiring USW to obtain
consent for representation from all the pre-65 Verso retirees is a
clear error of law because it creates a "class-wide arbitration" to
which they did not consent and is contrary to the Supreme Court's
holdings in Stolt-Nielsen SA v. AnimalFeeds International, 559 U.S.
662 (2010) (class action arbitration under the FAA is not permitted
unless specifically agreed to by the parties), Lamps Plus, Inc. v.
Varela, 139 S.Ct. 1407 (2019) (an "ambiguous agreement" cannot
provide "the necessary 'contractual basis' for compelling class
arbitration under the FAA) and Epic Systems v. Lewis, 138 S.Ct.
1612, 200 L.Ed.2d 889 (2018) (the FAA requires enforcement of
arbitration agreements waiving an employee's right to pursue claims
as a collective or class action, including those brought under the
FLSA).
The Court's May 4, 2021, Decision and Entry does not, however,
create a class action or collective action arbitration. Class
arbitration requires procedural formality" including giving absent
members "notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a right to opt out
of the class" in order to bind them to the arbitration outcome. In
the case, merely asking all 178 of the pre-65 Verso retirees to
give consent to the USW for representation at the arbitration does
not make it a class action arbitration. Because the Plaintiffs have
failed to establish that requiring the USW to obtain consent from
the pre-65 Verso retirees prior to the arbitration is a clear error
of law, their Motion for Reconsideration is overruled.
C. Immediate Interlocutory Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 28
U.S.C. Section 1292(b)
Section 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) permits a party to obtain an
immediate appeal of an order from the district court in a civil
case that is not otherwise appealable if, in the opinion of the
district court judge, "(1) the order involves a controlling
question of law, (2) a substantial ground for difference of opinion
exists regarding the correctness of the decision, and (3) an
immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of
the litigation."
At issue before the Court is the interpretation of
collectively-bargained agreements for health insurance benefits for
pre-65 Verso retirees. This is not the type of "controlling
question of law" Section 1292(b) is meant to address. As used in
this section, a "controlling question of law" refers to "the
meaning of a statutory or constitutional provision, regulation, or
common law doctrine."
The question at issue is the arbitration of health insurance
benefits for approximately 178 individuals who are pre-65 Verso
retirees. This is not a reason to certify an immediate
interlocutory appeal. The Plaintiffs have failed to establish that
a "substantial ground for difference of opinion regarding the
correctness" of the May 4, 2021, Decision and Entry exists.
Accordingly, the alternative motion for extraordinary relief by
certification of an immediate interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1292(b) is denied.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons he set forth, Judge Rice denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Reconsideration and in the Alternative for an Amended
Order Granting Right to Appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). As
stated in the May 4, 2021 Decision and Entry, all further
proceedings in the case are stayed pending the outcome of the
arbitration, with the counsel for the USW to notify the Court of
the arbitrator's decision within five business days of receipt of
same.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mta42rtm from Leagle.com.
UNIVERSITY & STATE: Cortes Consumer Suit Goes to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CESAR E. CORTES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY & STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT
UNION and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
37-2020-00018182-CU-BC-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California on April 4, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00444-LAB-DEB to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of account
agreement, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, unjust enrich/restitution, money had and received, and
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law and the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act.
University & State Employees Credit Union is a financial
cooperative based in San Diego, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark K. Worthge, Esq.
Alexandria K. Hobson, Esq.
LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP
2 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 400
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 683-1100
Facsimile: (626) 683-1113
E-mail: worthge@litchfieldcavo.com
hobson@litchfieldcavo.com
UNKNOWN BATHS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unknown Baths LLC.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Unknown Baths LLC doing
business as: Bathhouse, Case No. 1:22-cv-02021-FB-RER (E.D.N.Y.,
April 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Unknown Baths LLC doing business as Bathhouse --
https://www.abathhouse.com/ -- provides elite level treatments for
those who want to look, feel and perform their very best.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
UNKNOWN BURGESS: Willie Curtis Files Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIE CURTIS NO. 492630
v. UNKNOWN BURGESS, ET AL., Case No. 1:22-cv-00266-PJG (W.D.
Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
class certification because the issue that he is arguing affects
over 100,000 people across the United States, who have had $600 of,
either their $1800, or $1400, IRS-stimulus-money, unlawfully
garnished, due to their incarceration.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 23,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xgiUKp
at no extra charge.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Parties Agree to Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GRACZYK, ET AL., v.
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL., Case No. 1:20-cv-00889
(D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Amy Berman Jackson entered an order on
motion to certify class:
-- The motion for an order authorizing notice to similarly-
situated employees is denied as moot without prejudice to a
renewed motion should circumstances change.
The parties have now agreed to conditional class certification for
purposes of settlement. The Court approves the Parties' proposed
Class Notice and Claim Forms substantially in the forms submitted
to the Court, and orders the Parties to proceed with dissemination
of the Notice and Claim Forms as provided in the Settlement
Agreement".
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Verizon is an American multinational telecommunications
conglomerate and a corporate component of the Dow Jones Industrial
Average. The company is headquartered at 1095 Avenue of the
Americas in Midtown Manhattan, New York City, but is incorporated
in Delaware.[CC]
VISIONQUEST NATIONAL: Fails to Provide OT Pay, Andrade Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXA ACUNA ANDRADE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VISIONQUEST NATIONAL, LTD.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00166-EJM (D. Ariz., April 6, 2022)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Andrade was employed by the Defendant as a care worker.
VISIONQUEST NATIONAL, LTD. line of business includes providing
management services on a contract or fee basis. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Courtney Lowery, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AK 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Email: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com
VRDOLYAK LAW: Faces Alholm Suit in Ill. Over Alleged Wiretapping
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL ALHOLM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE VRDOLYAK LAW GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01820 (N.D., Ill., April 7, 2022) alleges violation of
the Federal Wiretap Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Chicago
and Nashville offices have been, and remain equipped with a network
of audio and video surveillance cameras, which the Defendant
monitored from its office that contained numerous screens for
purposes of video surveillance.
As a result of the Defendant's actions, the Plaintiff suffered and
continues to suffer reputational harm, invasion of privacy, and his
forced resignation, says the suit.
VRDOLYAK LAW GROUP, LLC is a full-service law firm that serves the
greater Chicago area and Nashville. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Spragens, Esq.
SPRAGENS LAW PLC
311 22nd Ave. N.
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 983-8900
Facsimile: (615) 682-8533
Email: john@spragenslaw.com
WAGEWORKS INC: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Healthequity, 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 final approval of
settlement of the class action was granted by the court in August
2021 with regards to a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California in March 9,
2018.
On May 16, 2019, a consolidated amended complaint was filed by the
lead plaintiffs asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against its
subsidiary, WageWorks Inc., its former Chief Executive Officer and
its former Chief Financial Officer on behalf of purchasers of
WageWorks common stock between May 6, 2016 and March 1, 2018.
The complaint also alleged claims under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, arising from WageWorks' June 19, 2017 common stock
offering against those same defendants, as well as the members of
its board of directors at the time of that offering.
The class action settled for $30.0 million. During the fiscal year
ended January 31, 2022, WageWorks contributed $5.0 million and its
insurers paid the remaining $25.0 million. The court granted final
approval of the settlement and entered a final judgment on August
20, 2021. This matter is now closed.
Healthequity, Inc. is a provider of technology-enabled services
based in Utah. In August 30, 2019 it acquired WageWorks, Inc. and
paid approximately $2.0 billion in cash to WageWorks stockholders,
financed through net borrowings of approximately $1.22 billion
under its loan facility and approximately $816.9 million of cash on
hand.
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Loses Bid to Toss Mabe's 1st Cause of Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Thomas J. McAvoy of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York issued a Decision and Order
denying the Defendant's renewed motion to dismiss the First Cause
of Action in the lawsuit titled BRIGETTE MABE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART
ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00591 (N.D.N.Y.).
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Brigette Mabe commenced this putative class action
seeking to recover untimely wage compensation and other damages for
Plaintiff and similar hourly cashiers, front end associates,
stockers, receiving associates, sales associates, and other similar
manual labor positions, who work or have worked as manual workers
for Defendant Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., from May 29, 2014, to the
present. The Complaint asserts two causes of action -- a frequency
of pay claim (First Cause of Action) and a wage statement claim
(Second Cause of Action).
After considering the Defendant's initial motion pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Court dismissed the Second Cause of
Action, but denied the motion with leave to renew as to the First
Cause of Action.
In the First Cause of Action, the Plaintiff claims that the
Defendant violated New York Labor Law ("NYLL") Section 191(1)(a) by
failing to pay her and the putative class members their wages
within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which these
wages were earned, rather than on a bi-weekly basis. The Plaintiff
does not allege that the Defendant failed to pay her any portion of
wages due for her labor or that the Defendant wrongfully deducted
any portion of her wages. The Complaint asserts that due to the
Defendant's violations of NYLL Section 191(1)(a), the Plaintiff and
the New York Class are entitled to recover from the Defendant the
amount of their untimely paid wages as liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest as provided for by NYLL Section 198.
The Defendant has renewed its dismissal motion relying primarily on
its originally filed briefs but also upon documents showing the
legislative history of NYLL Sections 191 & 198, as well as
supplemental authority handed down in the interim between the March
18, 2021 decision and the present. The Plaintiff opposes the
renewed motion and also cites to supplemental authority handed down
in the interim. The Defendant files a reply.
The parties dispute whether the New York Court of Appeals' decision
in Konkur v. Utica Academy of Sci. Charter School, 2022 WL 397774
(N.Y. Feb. 10, 2022), impacts the Court's decision on this motion.
II. Discussion
Applicable Law
The central question is whether the Court should apply Vega v. CM &
Assocs. Constr. Mgt., LLC, 175 A.D.3d 1144, 107 N.Y.S.3d 286 (N.Y.
App. Div., 1st Dept., 2019), a New York State Supreme Court,
Appellate Division case directly on point to the matter raised in
the First Cause of Action.
In Vega, the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
First Department, addressed a claim by a plaintiff who, like the
Plaintiff here, was paid her wages on a bi-weekly basis contrary to
NYLL Section 191(1)(a) which requires weekly payment of manual
workers, and who sought to recover liquidated damages, as well as
interest and reasonable attorney's fees, pursuant to Section
198(1-a). The Vega Court noted that Section 198(1-a) applies to
"'wage claims based upon violations of one or more of the
substantive provisions of Labor Law article 6.'" (quoting Gottlieb
v Kenneth D. Laub & Co., 82 N.Y.2d 457, 459 (NY 1993)).
The Vega Court held that the term underpayment as used in NYLL
Section 198(1-a) "encompasses the instances where an employer
violates the frequency requirements of section 191(1)(a) but pays
all wages due before the commencement of an action." The Court
found that the word "underpayment," deriving from the verb
"underpay," means to "pay less than what is normal or required."
The Court held that "[t]he moment that an employer fails to pay
wages in compliance with section 191(1)(a), the employer pays less
than what is required."
Conflicting Authority
Contrary to the Defendant's previous argument, New York's appellate
divisions are not divided as to the application of Vega to
situations similar to that presented in the First Cause of Action,
Judge McAvoy opines. Indeed, in Phillips v. Max Finkelstein, Inc.,
73 Misc.3d 1 (N.Y. App. Term, 2nd Dept., 9 & 10 Jud. Dists., 2021),
the Second Department relied upon Vega in finding that a lower
court erred in dismissing a claim similar to that alleged in the
First Cause of Action. In doing so, the Phillips Court rejected an
argument, like that previously raised by Defendant here, that
Matter of IKEA U.S. Inc. v. Industrial Bd. of Appeals, 241 A.D.2d
454, 660 N.Y.S.2d 585 (N.Y. App. Div., 2nd Dept., 1997), represents
a holding contrary to Vega.
Furthermore, as indicated by the Eastern District of New York,
since Vega every court in this Circuit to consider that decision
appears to have followed its construction of the New York Labor
Law, Judge McAvoy explains, citing Caul v. Petco Animal Supplies,
Inc., No. 20-CV-3534 (RPK/SJB), 2021 WL 4407856, at *3 (E.D.N.Y.
Sept. 27, 2021). One exception to this is, as previously cited by
the Defendant, Phillips v. Max Finkelstein, Inc., 66 Misc.3d 514,
115 N.Y.S.3d 866, 867-69 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty. 2019).
However, Judge McAvoy notes, the Second Department subsequently
vacated the trial court's conclusion that no private right of
action exists for a frequency of pay violation under N.Y. Lab. Law
Section 191(1)(a). The other trial-level court cases previously
cited by the Defendant for the proposition that no private right of
action exits to recover liquidated damages and other relief because
an employer does not comply with NYLL Section 191(1)(a) are not
persuasive because they predated Vega.
Thus, the case authority directly addressing the issue raised in
the First Cause of Action is not unsettled, and therefore, there
appears to be no apparent reason to determine how the New York
State Court of Appeals would decide the issues addressed in Vega,
Judge McAvoy holds, citing Phansalkar v. Andersen Weinroth & Co.,
344 F.3d 184, 199 (2d Cir. 2003).
Nevertheless, Judge McAvoy notes, the Defendant maintains that the
Konkur decision dooms the Plaintiff's argument that Sections 191
and 198 provide a freestanding private right of action for untimely
paid wages and compels dismissal of the First Cause of Action in
the Complaint. The Court does not agree.
The Defendant also argues, among other things, that "having barred
employees from suing to recover wages extorted from them through
kickback payments in Konkur -- conduct for which the perpetrator is
subject to criminal prosecution -- it is absurd to think the Court
of Appeals would sanction a private right of action for a non-wage
claim. This is all the more so, given Plaintiff's position here
that, even without any actual damages, she is entitled to recover
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees, and then exponentially
multiply those draconian penalties through a class action." The
Court does not agree.
Judge McAvoy opines that although the Konkur Court held that an
employer-required kickback claim under Section 198-b did not
qualify as a wage claim under Section 198, it did not address
whether the late payment of wages is an underpayment of wages and
thus a wage claim privately actionable under NYLL Section 198(1-a)
as found by Vega. As to whether Section 198-b qualifies as a wage
claim, the Konkur Court stated only that it disagreed with a
federal court that stated the contrary. It provided little
discussion upon which to conclude that it would reject the Vega
Court's conclusion that the late payment of wages constitutes
underpayment of wages and thus a wage claim privately actionable
under Section 198(1-a).
Thus, Konkur does not directly contradict the Vega Court's
determination that the late payment of wages is an underpayment of
wages, Judge McAvoy explains.
The Defendant also argues that the Court should rely on Konkur's
analysis of the three-factor test to determine whether the
legislative intent favors an implied right in the instant case.
Judge McAvoy opines that this argument does not does not change the
Court's conclusion here. First, Vega found that Section 198(1-a)
provides an explicit private cause of action for Section 191(1)(a)
violations, obviating the need to determine whether legislative
intent favors an implied right. By contrast, Konkur addressed a
different statute than in issue here, the statute that did not have
an express private right of action, and the underlying violation
did not amount to a wage claim.
Second, and assuming arguendo that the New York Court of Appeals
would conclude that there is no express private right of action for
a late payment of wages under Sections 191 or 198, the Vega Court
addressed the three-factor test and found that an implied private
right of action would be found, Judge McAvoy adds.
To the extent the Defendant contends that the statute already
provides an administrative mechanism to enforce Section 191
violations, the legislative history reflects the administrative
nature of the Section 191 scheme, and that there is no private
right of action in Section 198 for a mere untimely payment of
wages, Vega addressed those concerns, Judge McAvoy points out. The
Vega Court found that the purposes of Sections 191 and 198 are to
protect employees who are "dependent upon their wages for
sustenance" and deter labor law violations.
Based upon this, the Court is not convinced that the New York Court
of Appeals would reach conclusions different than those expressed
in Vega.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed, the Court finds that under Vega, the
Plaintiff presents a legally plausible claim in the First Cause of
Action. Accordingly, the Defendant's renewed motion to dismiss the
First Cause of Action is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated March 24,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4x3jawcn from
Leagle.com.
WALCO FUNDING: Cline EFTA Suit Removed to W.D. Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CARL CLINE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WALCO FUNDING, LLC, Case No.
02CV211743, was removed from the Circuit Court of Ashley County,
Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas on April 6, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Arkansas assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-01021-SOH to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged conversion and
violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act by failing to obtain written
authorization to debit the Plaintiff's account for payments
regarding a vehicle service contract and failing to instruct him on
how to terminate the recurring debit charges.
Walco Funding, LLC is a payment plan provider for vehicle and home
service contracts, headquartered in Illinois. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Allison Raley, Esq.
Colt Galloway, Esq.
MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C.
4206 South J.B. Hunt Drive, Suite 200
Rogers, AR 72758
Telephone: (479) 464-5653
E-mail: araley@mwlaw.com
cgalloway@mwlaw.com
- and –
Benjamin D. Jackson, Esq.
MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C.
425 West Capitol Ave. Ste. 1800
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 688-8800
E-mail: bjackson@mwlaw.com
WASHINGTON: Sather Loses Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sather, et al v. State of
Washington, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00014-TOR (E.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Thomas O. Rice entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiffs shall amend or voluntarily dismiss their
Complaint within 60 days of the date of this Order, or
risk dismissal under 28 U.S.C. sections 1915A(b)(1) and
1915(e)(2), and a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. section
1915(g);
2. The Clerk's Office shall SET a case management deadline 60
days after the date of this Order.
3. The Plaintiffs' Request for Class Certification is denied.
4. The Plaintiffs' Request for Preliminary Injunction is
denied.
5. The Plaintiffs' Request for the Appointment of Class
Counsel, is denied.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E70EV3 at no extra charge.[CC]
WEEK PUBLICATIONS: Custard Sues Over Disclosure of Private Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Custard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE WEEK PUBLICATIONS, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-10666-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., March 28, 2022), is brought
against The Week Publications, Inc. ("TWP") for its intentional and
unlawful disclosure of its customers' Private Reading Information
in violation Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act (the
"PPPA").
To supplement its revenues, TWP 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 age and gender—to data aggregators, data appenders, data
cooperatives, and other third parties without the written consent
of its customers.
The Defendant TWP rented, exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed
detailed information about the Plaintiff's The Week magazine
subscription to data aggregators, data appenders, data
cooperatives, and list brokers, among others, which in turn
disclosed his information to aggressive advertisers, political
organizations, and non-profit companies. As a result, the Plaintiff
has received a barrage of unwanted junk mail. By renting,
exchanging, and/or otherwise disclosing Plaintiff's Private Reading
Information during the relevant pre-July 30, 2016 time period1, TWP
violated the PPPA.
Documented evidence confirms these facts. For example, a list
broker, NextMark, Inc., offers to provide renters access to the
mailing list titled "THE WEEK MAGAZINE Mailing List", which
contains the Private Reading Information of 283,854 of TWP's active
U.S. subscribers at a base price of "$130.00/M per thousand,"
(i.e., 13 cents apiece). By renting, exchanging, or otherwise
disclosing the Private Reading Information of its Michigan-based
subscribers during the relevant pre-July 30, 2016 time period, TWP
violated the PPPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a subscriber to The Week magazine, including
during the relevant pre-July 30, 2016 time period.
The Week Publications, Inc. is a New York corporation who does
business throughout Michigan and the entire United States and is
the publisher of The Week magazine.[BN]
The Plaintiff is 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
WELLS FARGO: Burke Sues Over Bank's Mortgage Calculation Errors
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMY BURKE and LAWRENCE MARAVILLA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-at-00348 (E.D. Cal., April 4, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of form contract,
breach of the form contract's implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, fraud and fraudulent concealment, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and gross negligence and/or
negligence.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to detect the
systematic errors in its automated decision-making software. The
software determined customers' eligibility for a
government-mandated mortgage modification during a time of extreme
financial distress. The Defendant failed to adequately test, audit,
and verify that its software was correctly calculating whether
customers met threshold requirements for a mortgage modification.
In addition, the Defendant failed to regularly and properly audit
the software for compliance with government requirements, allowing
life-changing errors to remain uncorrected for years. As a result
of the Defendant's deficient auditing and compliance procedures,
the Defendant repeatedly violated the Home Affordable Modification
Program (HAMP) and other government statutes, regulations, and
enforcement orders over a period of at least eight years. By this
conduct, the Defendant denied the Plaintiffs and other Class
members trial mortgage modifications that the Defendant was legally
required to offer.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a residential home mortgage servicer
based in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mitchell Chyette, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MITCHELL CHYETTE
125 12th Street, Suite 100-BALI
Oakland, CA 94607-3699
Telephone: (510) 388-3748
Facsimile: (510) 680-3760
E-mail: mitch@chyettelaw.com
- and –
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
DANNLAW
15000 Madison Avenue
Lakewood, OH 44107
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com
WENTZVILLE R-IV SCHOOL DISTRICT: NAACP Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISSOURI STATE CONFERENCE
OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE,
et al., v. WENTZVILLE R-IV SCHOOL DISTRICT, Case No.
4:22-cv-00191-MTS (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:
1. certify a Plaintiff Class consisting of:
"all current and future students in District schools who
use, or will use, a District school library to access
information, or such other class of students the Court
deems appropriate; appoint individual Plaintiffs D.L. and
C.K.-W. as class representatives; and
2. appointing Anthony E. Rothert, Jessie Steffan, Molly
Carney, Emily Lazaroff, Gillian R. Wilcox, and Vera
Eidelman as class counsel.
In this action, the Plaintiffs challenge the policy of the District
of removing books from school libraries because of officials'
dislike of the ideas contained in the books and with the intent and
purpose to prescribe what is generally or traditionally accepted as
right or true in matters of opinion, and of automatically removing
books upon any complaint against the books by a parent, student, or
guardian—sometimes with the possibility of further review and, in
other cases, permanently -- in violation of Plaintiffs' First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights.
NAACP is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic
equality of rights of all citizens
Wentzville R-IV School District is a school district headquartered
in Wentzville, Missouri, United States. In addition to almost all
of Wentzville, the district serves all of Lake St. Louis, the St.
Charles County portion of Foristell; and portions of Dardenne
Prairie, Flint Hill, Josephville, and O'Fallon.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 24,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uxbFvG
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Molly E. Carney, Esq.
Anthony E. Rothert, Esq.
Jessie Steffan, Esq.
Emily Lazaroff, Esq.
Gillian R. Wilcox, Esq.
ACLU OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION
906 Olive Street, Suite 1130
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 652-3114
Facsimile: (314) 652-3112
E-mail: trothert@aclu-mo.org
jsteffan@aclu-mo.org
mcarney@aclu-mo.org
elazaroff@aclu-mo.org
gwilcox@aclu-mo.org
- and -
Vera Eidelman, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION
125 Broad St., 18 Fl.
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2500
E-mail: veidelman@aclu.org
WILLIAMSRDM INC: Underpays Quality Assurance Inspectors, Smith Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FREDERICK SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAMSRDM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-00268-P (N.D. Tex., April 6, 2022) is a collective action
brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, against Defendant for violations of the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the FLSA by not
including all forms of compensation, such as the non-discretionary
bonuses of Plaintiff and other hourly employees, in their regular
rate when calculating their overtime pay.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
quality assurance inspector from April of 2019 until February of
2022.
Williamsrdm, Inc. is a manufacturing company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
XTEND HEALTHCARE: Castillero Sues Over Violations of WARN Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHEILA CASTILLERO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. XTEND HEALTHCARE, LLC; and STAFF
MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case 3:22-cv-02099 (D.N.J.,
April 11, 2022) alleges that the Defendants failed to give the
Plaintiff and the Class at least 60 days' advance notice of
termination, as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.
Plaintiff Castillero was employed by the Defendants as customer
service representative.
Xtend Healthcare LLC. offers insurance services. The Company
provides professional, medical and general liability, risk
management, transportation, workers compensation, environmental,
cargo, and inland marine insurance products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gail C. Lin, Esq.
Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 221-1747
E-mail: gcl@raisnerroupinian.com
jar@raisnerroupinian.com
rsr@raisnerroupinian.com
XTO ENERGY: Amended Bid for Class Status Filed in Salvatora Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SALVATORA, D&M MARBURGER
FAMILY ENTERPRISES, L.P., HEASLEY'S NURSERIES, INC., and RODNEY L.
LANG and BONITA A. LANG, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, v. XTO ENERGY INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01097-CRE
(W.D. Pa.), the representative plaintiffs Roger A. Salvatora,
Sandra E. Salvatora, D&M Marburger Family Enterprises, L.P.,
Heasley's Nurseries, Inc. and Rodney L. Lang and Bonita A. Lang,
submit an amended motion for class certification.
The prerequisites for class certification contained in Fed.R.Civ.P.
23(a) and 23(b)(3) have been satisfied for the following class for
Count II of the Third Amended Complaint:
"Every individual and entity who possessed a royalty
ownership interest in an oil and gas lease with Phillips
Exploration, Inc., Phillips Production Company, PC
Exploration, Inc., TWP Inc. or Phillips Resources Inc. or any
entity affiliated with any of them ("Phillips") covering oil
and gas interests at any time during the period of
limitations (a) who received one or more royalty payments
from XTO; (b) whose oil and gas lease covered gas that was or
is gathered on the Jefferson, Forward or AK Steel gathering
segments of the Mountain Gathering system in Butler County,
Pennsylvania, and (c) (i) who was either a member of the
settlement class in Marburger v. XTO Energy Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-910-CRE (W.D.Pa.) ("Marburger"), or (ii) whose oil
and gas lease based the royalty on a percentage of
proceeds and contained a Market Enhancement Clause. ["Market
Enhancement Clause" is defined in Paragraph 3 of this
Motion.]"
The Class for Count II excludes:
(i) any claims for any member of the settlement class in
Marburger v. XTO Energy Inc., Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-00910-
CRE (W.D. Pa.), for times before the effective date of the
Marburger Final Order; (ii) the United States; (iii) the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and (iv) all individuals and
entities who possessed a royalty ownership interest in an oil
and gas lease with Phillips where the royalty provision
provided: To pay Lessor as a royalty, for the native gas,
casing head gas, condensate, hydrocarbons or other gaseous
substance, produced from said land and sold or used beyond
the well or for the extraction of gasoline or other product,
an amount equal to [a percentage] of the gross amount
realized by Lessee computed at the wellhead from the sale of
such substances from each and every well. Lessor's royalty
will never bear any part of the costs or expenses of
production, gathering, compression or transportation of the
oil or gas produced from the lease premises; SAVE AND EXCEPT
that, Lessor's royalty shall bear its proportionate share of
all ad valorem taxes and production, severance, and other
excise taxes and the actual, reasonable costs paid to or
deducted by a non-affiliated third party to gather,
transport, compress, process, stabilize or treat the
production off the lease Premises or lands pooled therewith
in order to make the production saleable, increase its value,
or get the production to a market. (Such lease is an "ABC
Lease").
Each representative plaintiff has an oil and gas lease that is
being and/or has been operated and administered by defendant XTO.
XTO is an American energy company, principally operating in North
America, specializing in the drilling and production of
unconventional oil and natural gas assets, typically from shale
rock through a process known as hydraulic fracturing. It is a
subsidiary of ExxonMobil.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 23, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Jy0CXx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David A. Borkovic, Esq.
JONES, GREGG, CREEHAN & GERACE, LLP
411 Seventh Ave, Suite 1200
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 261-6400
YRC INC: Aisha Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Randall Aisha, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. YRC Inc. dba YRC Freight, YRC
Worldwide Inc., Yellow Corporation, Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. CIVSB 2200789, was removed from the San Bernardino
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on April 8, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-00605 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
Yellow Corporation -- http://yrc.com/-- is an American
transportation holding company headquartered in Overland Park,
Kansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert W. Bosslet, Esq.
KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
2029 Century Park East Suite 2000N
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (424) 288-7900
Fax: (424) 288-7901
Email: rbosslet@kasowitz.com
ZEAL NATURALS: Hayes Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAVID HAYES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ZEAL NATURALS, Case No.
2022-LA-000252, was removed from the Circuit Court for the 18th
Judicial Circuit of Illinois, DuPage County, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 6, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-01782 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, individual money damages,
class money damages, and recovery of his attorney's fees incurred
in litigation of this action.
Zeal Naturals is a manufacturer of dietary supplements, with its
principal place of business in Utah. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph A. Morris, Esq.
MORRIS & DE LA ROSA
6171 North Sheridan Road, Suite 312
Chicago, IL 60660
Telephone: (312) 927-4680
E-mail: MDLRusuk@aol.com
[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Be A Sponsor
------------------------------------------------------------------
Beard Group, Inc. is hosting the 6th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference on Monday, May 2nd.
The conference will be held in person at The Harmonie Club in
Manhattan. Major sponsors include Baird Mandalas Brockstedt LLC,
and Schochor, Federico and Staton, P.A.
Sponsorship and speaking opportunities remain available.
For sponsorship options and details, contact:
Bernard Toliver, CMP
Tel: (240) 629-3300 ext. 149
E-mail: bernard@beardgroup.com
For more conference information, visit us at
https://www.classactionconference.com/
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***