/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220419.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, April 19, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 72
Headlines
1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Orsino Sues Over Unwanted Telephonic Sales Calls
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Elliott Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: Chartier Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Exposed Consumers to PFAS, Hollingsworth Suit Says
3M COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: LeFleur Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Millay Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Savage Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Williams Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
ACTAVIS PHARMA: Court Trims Claims in Metformin Sales Practice Suit
ACUITY BRANDS: Consolidated Stockholder Suit Ongoing in Georgia
AFRICAN METHODIST: Faces $90-M Suit Over Mismanaged Pension Funds
AFRICAN RAINBOW: Pays R320-M to Silicosis Claimants in Mining Suit
AISEN GILL & ASSOCIATES: Lightfoot Files FDCPA Suit in D. Nevada
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Lewis Sues Over Mislabeled Soda Products
ALBERTSONS LLC: Sadlowski Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AMERICAN TUNA: Craig Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to S.D. California
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Caicedo Seeks Conditional Collective Status
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Putative Class Suit in New York
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Stockholder Suit in NY Court
ASSESSOR OF NEW HYDE PARK: Yin Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
AT&T SERVICES: Bare Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AVENUE MONTAIGNE: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BELMONT VILLAGE: Bacchus Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
BENIHANA INC: Kim Class Certification Bid Tossed
CARDINAL HEALTH: Health Care Employees Seek to Certify Class
CHARTER FOODS: Spencer Files ADA Suit in E.D. Kentucky
CHRISTIE BUSINESS: Strode Files Suit in C.D. Illinois
COCA-COLA BOTTLERS: Claims in Anderson's ERISA Complaint Trimmed
COGNYTE GROUP: Faces Suit Over Stock Option Dispute
DEUTSCHE BANK: Karimi Suit Moved From D.N.J. to S.D.N.Y.
DREAMY CREATIONS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DUNNE MANNING: Williams NYSHRL Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y.
EFG GENERAL: Racca Contract Suit Removed to E.D. Texas
EG AMERICA LLC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EVENTIDE CREDIT: Bid to Dismiss Duggan's 2nd Amended Suit Denied
FOOD 4 LESS: Delgado Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages and Benefits
FRIENDS MORE: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GC CLARK LLC: Fails to Offer Rent-Stabilized Lease, Ostrow Says
GENIUS BRANDS: Faces Putative Class Action in California
GREENSKY INC: Seeks Judgment on Pleadings in Wright Suit
GROUPCAM LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ortiz Suit Alleges
GRUBHUB INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Davitashvili's Amended Complaint
GUIDA DAIRY: Faces Class Suit Over Injury From Contaminated Milk
HAMILTON PARK: Fails to Implement COVID-19 Control, McCarthy Says
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Adkinson Sues Over Customers' Info Exposure
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Ruiz Files Suit in N.D. California
HYATT CORPORATION: Vigil Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
INTERNATIONAL FOAM: Jolly FLSA Suit Seeks to Recover Back Wages
JUUL LABS: Buhl School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis in Ohio
KENT COUNTY, MI: Sattler Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Fails to Secure Customers Info, Myers Suit Says
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Kimbrough Suit Says
LDV GREENWICH: Hanyzkiewicz Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
LOUISIANA: Plaisance, et al., Seek to Certify Three Classes
MEJURI INC: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Click Suit Alleges
MERIDIAN PRIME INC: Court Narrows Claims in Timberg Class Suit
MICHPAT & FAM: Conditional Certification in Valdez Suit Adopted
MIDLAND CREDIT: Pimienta Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: Dismissal of Salim Suit Under Appeal
MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Cole, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
NEW MILLENNIUM: Farrell Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
NEW YORK: Jacobson Class Suit Dismissed
NEWPORT GROUP: Russ Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
NFINITY ATHLETICS: Fusion Elite Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA: Padilla Sues Over Unpaid Lawful Wages
NNW IMPORT: Faces Marroquin Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Drivers
OATLY GROUP: Faces Bentley Shareholder Suit in NY Court
OATLY GROUP: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in NY Court
OATLY GROUP: Faces Jochims Shareholder Suit in New York
OATLY GROUP: Faces Kostendt Class Suit in New York
ODE A LA ROSE: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OREGON: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Jail COVID-19 Response
ORSUGA CONSULTING: Kucken Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA
OTONOMO INC: Mollaei Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PEPSICO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Drobsch Suit Alleges
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Bryski Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to S.D. Ohio
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Canaday Suit Moved From S.D. Cal. to S.D. Ohio
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Leyva Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to S.D. Ohio
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Toporek Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to S.D. Ohio
PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Banks Files Suit in D. Colorado
REALOGY HOLDINGS: NDNC, DNC Classes Certified
REALREAL INC: Sued Over Alleged Illegal Employment Practices
RLS-CMC INC: Kinzel Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
SAUVAGE INC: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SENTINEL TRANSPORTATION: Valencia Labor Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
SOCIETY INSURANCE: Class Certification in Alley 64 Suit Reversed
SOLARWINDS CORP: Thompson's Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted
STRAIGHT SMILE: Russell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SWAPPA LLC: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SWEETLY SPIRITED: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TA OPERATING: Holley-Gallegly Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
TILRAY BRANDS: Faces Bouvier Stockholder Suit in Del. Ch.
TILRAY BRANDS: Faces Braun Stockholder Suit in Del. Ch.
TILRAY BRANDS: Kasilingam Stockholder Suit Dismissed
ULTA BEAUTY: Chandler Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed W/o Prejudice
UNION PLAZA: Fails to Properly Pay Cashiers, Martinez Suit Claims
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Lopez Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
VERIDIAN HEALTHCARE: Rodriguez Files Suit in S.D. New York
VIRGINIA COMMUNITY: Moore Wins Leave to Amend ERISA Class Complaint
WALGREEN CO: Calixte Sues Over Deceptive Advertising of Gift Cards
WALGREENS MAIL: Wilkerson Seeks to Certify CCR Employee Class
WALMART INC: Russell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Be A Speaker
*********
1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Orsino Sues Over Unwanted Telephonic Sales Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA ORSINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, INC., Case No. CACE-22-005128 (Fla.
Cir., Broward Cty., April 7, 2022) contends that the Defendant
promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing
unsolicited phone calls to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Defendant is a floral and foods gift retailer and distribution
company.
To promote its goods and services, Defendant allegedly engages in
aggressive telephonic sales calls to consumers without having
secured prior express written consent as required under the FTSA,
and with no regards for consumers ' rights under the TCPA. The
Defendant's telephonic sales calls have caused Plaintiff and the
Class members harm, including violations of their statutory rights,
statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their
privacy.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and
statutory damages on behalf of herself and the Class members, as
defined below, and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant.
On or about November 11, 2021, November 18, 2021, and November 25,
2021, Defendant allegedly sent telephonic sales calls to Plaintiffs
cellular telephone number:
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's telephonic sales calls
was to solicit the sale of consumer goods and/or services. The
messages contained language such as "Kick off the holidays & Save
30% for Cyber Monday." The Defendant's calls were not made for an
emergency purpose or to collect on a debt pursuant to 47 U.S .C.
section 227(b)(l)(B). The Defendant's calls were transmitted to
Plaintiffs cellular telephone, and within the time frame relevant
to this action, the Plaintiff adds.
The Defendant's calls constitute telemarketing because they
encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or
services, i.e., selling Plaintiff Defendant's floral and food
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Garrett 0 . Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: shamis@shamisgentile.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
Christopher Gold, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 3 3180
Telephone: (786) 289-94 71
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
chris@edelsberglaw.com
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Elliott Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSS ELLIOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01130-RMG
(D.S.C., April 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition due to
inadequate warning about the products' danger. He relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products.
As a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, the
Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Chartier Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
VANCE CHARTIER, 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-01165-RMG (D.S.C., April 10, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence/gross 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 thyroid disease and commenced
on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via a
thyroidectomy.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Exposed Consumers to PFAS, Hollingsworth Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
BENNY HOLLINGSWORTH, 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-01149-RMG (D.S.C., April 8, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence/gross 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 thyroid disease and commenced
on-going medical treatment.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Johnson, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC 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.), Case No. 2:22-cv-01059-RMG (D.S.C., March 31,
2022), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles R. Houssiere, III
HOUSSIERE, DURANT & HOUSSIERE, LLP
1990 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 800
Houston, TX 77056-3812
Phone: 713-626-3700
Facsimile: 713-626-3709
Email: choussiere@hdhtex.com
3M COMPANY: LeFleur Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
-----------------------------------------------------
Joe LeFleur, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC 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.), Case No. 2:22-cv-01060-RMG (D.S.C., March 31,
2022), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
bladder cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Millay Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK MILLAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01163-RMG
(D.S.C., April 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition due to
inadequate warning about the products' danger. He relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products,
says the suit.
As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with colon cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Savage Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SAVAGE and RAMONA SAVAGE, 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-01125-RMG (D.S.C., April 7, 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 John Savage 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. Savage, 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 chronic pancreatitis, 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: Williams Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
FREDDIE WILLIAMS, 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-01159-RMG (D.S.C., April 8, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence,
strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violations of the
Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and the California's Unfair
Competition Law.
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 military
personnel, 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 kidney cancer and commenced on-going medical
treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via a left partial
nephrectomy, 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
ACTAVIS PHARMA: Court Trims Claims in Metformin Sales Practice Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE METFORMIN MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICE
LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 20-2324 (D.N.J.), Judge Madeline Cox
Arleo of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion granting in part and denying in part the Motions
to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint brought by the Manufacturer
Defendant, and the Pharmacy Defendants and AvKare, Inc.
I. Background
The putative class action arises out of the allegedly adulterated,
misbranded, and/or unapproved manufacturing, sale, and distribution
of metformin-containing drugs ("MCDs"). MCDs are commonly used in
the treatment and management of type 2 diabetes. The Defendants
allegedly manufactured, distributed, and sold MCDs that were
contaminated with a probable human carcinogen known as
N-nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA"). The Plaintiffs are consumers who
purchased MCDs and MSPRC, an LLC that has been assigned the rights
and power to sue the Defendants on behalf of the TPPs. The TPPs
allege that they have made payments for contaminated MCDs in all 50
states.
On March 3, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint,
which they subsequently amended on July 6, 2020. On May 20, 2021,
the Court dismissed the Amended Complaint for lack of standing, and
the Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint ("FAC")
on June 21, 2021.
The FAC asserts 11 causes of action against the Defendants: (1)
breach of express warranty (Counts One and Two); (2) breach of
implied warranty of merchantability (Counts Three and Four); (3)
breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 2301, et seq. (the "MMWA") (Counts Five and Six); (4)
fraud (Counts Seven and Eight); (5) negligent misrepresentation and
omission (Counts Nine and Ten); (6) violation of state consumer
protection laws (Counts Eleven and Twelve); (7) unjust enrichment
(Counts Thirteen and Fourteen); (8) negligence (Counts Fifteen and
Sixteen); (9) negligence per se (Counts Seventeen and Eighteen);
(10) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal.
Civ. Code Sections 1750, et seq. (Counts Nineteen and Twenty); and
(11) violation of New York General Business Law Section 349.5
(Counts Twenty One and Twenty Two).
The instant Motions to dismiss the FAC pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6) followed.
II. Analysis
A. Standing
The Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss the FAC because
the Plaintiffs failed to correct the deficiencies the Court
identified in its May 2021 Order with respect to their lack of
Article III standing to bring the action.
Judge Arleo agrees as to the Consumer Plaintiffs but finds that
MSPRC has sufficiently alleged its standing to bring claims against
the Manufacturer Defendants.
The Consumer Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of
consumers who paid for the "Defendants' MCDs [that] were
adulterated and/or misbranded through contamination with NDMA."
However, without any allegations that the Consumer Plaintiffs
actually purchased MCDs that were contaminated with NDMA, they lack
standing to bring such a class action. Judge Arleo therefore
dismisses the FAC as to the Consumer Plaintiffs and grants the
Defendant's motions as to Counts One, Three, Five, Seven, Nine,
Eleven, Thirteen, Fifteen, Seventeen, Nineteen, and Twenty-One.
As for MSPRC, Judge Arleo is satisfied that MSPRC has now
sufficiently alleged which Manufacturer Defendant caused each of
its injuries. The FAC contains a chart of sample payments that
MSPRC's assignors made for Defendants' MCDs, including the name of
each assignor, the unique National Drug Code (NDC) associated with
the purchase, and the Defendant who manufactured the MCD.
Lastly, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs lack standing to
bring claims across all 50 states, as MSPRC alleges residence in
Delaware and Florida and asserts claims for reimbursements made
only in six states -- Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, New York, and
Ohio. However, this argument "conflates Article III standing with
the requirements of Rule 23" class certification. At this stage of
the litigation, MSPRC need only show that it has Article III
standing to bring a claim, which it has done successfully.
B. Personal Jurisdiction and Service
Finally, the Manufacturer Defendants argue that the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over the Foreign Defendants because of a lack
of minimum contacts and improper service.
Judge Arleo agrees. MSPRC certainly has not alleged facts
warranting piercing the corporate veil. She therefore finds that
the Court lacks personal jurisdiction as to the Foreign Defendants
and dismisses the claims against them without prejudice.
C. Shotgun Pleading
The Defendants next contend that MSPRC's claims should be dismissed
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8(a)(2) because the FAC
amounts to improper group pleading.
Judge Arleo disagrees. She opines that the FAC is not a shotgun
pleading. MSPRC alleges that each Defendant manufactured and sold
contaminated MCDs, identifying each Manufacturer Defendant's
failure to follow current Good Manufacturing Practices ("cGMPs"),
specific warranties made by each Defendant, and identifying each
Defendant who manufactured an MCD reimbursed by a TPP. These
allegations are therefore sufficient to put each Defendant on
notice of the claims brought against it.
D. Preemption
The Defendants next argue that MSPRC's state law claims are
preempted by federal law and are subject to the Primary
Jurisdiction doctrine.
These arguments are unavailing, Judge Arleo holds. She finds that
(i) MSPRC's claims are based on state law and contract duties to
refrain from breaching warranties, which exist independently of FDA
regulations; and (ii) the specific relief sought by MSPRC, namely
money damages for the TPP's economic losses, is not provided by the
FDA and "courts generally do not defer jurisdiction where
plaintiffs seek damages for injuries to their property or person.
E. Subsumption
The Manufacturer Defendants next argue that MSPRC's breach of
implied warranty, unjust enrichment, negligence, and negligence per
se claims are subsumed by the New Jersey Products Liability Act
("PLA"), N.J.S.A. Sections 2A:58C-1, et seq. Mfr. Def. Mem. at
38-41. MSPRC counters that the PLA does not apply to their theory
of liability.
Judge Arleo agrees with MSPRC. While the Manufacturer Defendants
assert that the heart of MSPRC's case is the potential for harm
caused by the MCDs, the Court has rejected similar arguments in
cases where there is alleged harm to the product itself, there are
no allegations of physical harm, and the parties do not seek
damages for physical harm. At this stage, Judge Arleo finds that
MSPRC's claims, as alleged, are not subsumed by the PLA.
F. Rule 12(b)(6) Failure to State a Claim
The Defendants next argue that the FAC should be dismissed because
MSPRC has failed to plead essential elements of each claim.
Judge Arleo agrees in part with the Defendants. She finds that (i)
MSPRC has sufficiently pleaded its express warranty claims; (ii)
because MSPRC has not alleged privity between the TPPs and the
Manufacturer Defendants, MSPRC's claims for breach of implied
warranty under New York law are dismissed; (iii) the Defendants
cite no legal authority for the contention that MSPRC must allege a
physical injury or that the MCDs lack any therapeutic benefit to
successfully state a claim for breach of implied warranty; (iv) the
TPP's MCDs are not proper subjects for an MMWA claim and she
accordingly grants the Defendants' motions as to Count Six; and (v)
MSPRC has certainly failed to allege any facts to show that the
Manufacturing Defendants had knowledge of the contaminated MCDs and
she grants the Defendants' Motions as to Count Eight.
Judge Arleo also finds that (i) she grants the Manufacturer
Defendants' Motion as to Count Ten because MSPRC has not alleged
any facts to show that the Defendants owed the TPPs an independent
legal duty, or that there was a privity relationship between the
TPPs and the Manufacturer Defendants; (ii) MSPRC's allegations that
the TPPs purchased MCDs from Defendants in reliance on their
generic labels are sufficient to state a claim under Sections 349
and 350; (iii) MSPRC's claim is pled in the alternate to the other
claims in the FAC, and pursuant to Rule 8(d)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Procedure, MSPRC's claim may go forward under New Jersey
law; and (iv) because MSPRC's alleged damages stem only from
financial harm arising from the contamination of the MCDs, and it
is not clear how discovery would warrant the application of any
exception, she finds that MSPRC's negligence and negligence per se
claims under the laws of California, New York, New Jersey, and
Indiana are dismissed.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons she stated, Judge Arleo granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. All claims asserted by
the Consumer Plaintiffs -- Counts One, Three, Five, Seven, Nine,
Eleven, Thirteen, Fifteen, Seventeen, Nineteen, and Twenty-One --
are dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing. Of the
remaining claims asserted by MSPRC, Counts Four under New York law,
Six, Eight, Ten, Twelve under California and Indiana law, Fourteen
under New York and California law, Sixteen under New York, Indiana,
California, and New Jersey law, Eighteen under New York, Indiana,
California, and New Jersey law, and Twenty are dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim. The FAC is dismissed
without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction over the
Foreign Defendants.
To the extent the Plaintiffs can cure the deficiencies identified
in the Opinion, they may file an amended pleading within 30 days.
An appropriate order follows
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ycz8w5yx from Leagle.com.
ACUITY BRANDS: Consolidated Stockholder Suit Ongoing in Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Acuity Brands, Inc. 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 on October 1, 2021,
certain alleged shareholders of the company filed a putative
derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia asserting claims against three of the
individuals named as defendants in the above securities action for
breach of fiduciary duty and certain other claims arising out of
the alleged facts and circumstances upon which the claims in the
above securities class action are based. The company is named as a
nominal defendant, and the plaintiffs seek on behalf of the Company
unspecified damages from the individual defendants and other
relief. Prior to filing the Derivative Complaint, the derivative
plaintiffs sent letters to the company's Board of Directors
demanding that the company investigate and pursue substantially the
same claims against the individual defendants that are asserted in
the Derivative Complaint. The company's board formed a demand
evaluation committee consisting of independent directors to
investigate these matters and make a recommendation to the board
regarding the best interests of the company in connection
therewith.
On December 14, 2021, the company filed a motion to stay the
derivative action pending the conclusion of the related securities
class action or, in the alternative, to dismiss the derivative
action without prejudice as premature, given the demand evaluation
committee's ongoing work. Also on December 14, 2021, the individual
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Derivative Complaint for
failure to adequately plead any claim for relief against them.
Acuity Brands, Inc. is an industrial technology company solving
problems in spaces and light through the development of lighting,
lighting controls, building management systems and location-aware
applications.
AFRICAN METHODIST: Faces $90-M Suit Over Mismanaged Pension Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The African Methodist Episcopal Church is the target of a
class-action lawsuit filed on March 22 by as many as 5000 eligible
beneficiaries of its pension fund that has lost at least $90
million due to irresponsible investments, according to the suit.
The Charleston Post and Courier is reporting that the Mother
Emmanuel AME Church in Nashville, Tennessee is being sued by active
and retired bishops and others who are worried that their pension
are no longer coming since they had been halted by the church
earlier this year.
Church officials are looking for ways reinstate payments, even
partially, as the financial disaster has left thousands of retirees
in limbo.
The lawsuit is filed on behalf of retired Presiding Elder Cedric
Alexander of Maryland who is lead plaintiff as well as all eligible
persons unless they explicitly opt out. The suit is prepared by the
firm Kantor & Kantor of California in collaboration with the AARP
Foundation and was filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland.
The defendants in the lawsuit include Jerome V. Harris, the former
executive director of the church's Department of Retirement
Services, and South Carolina Bishop Samuel L. Green, the former
chairman of Retirement Services' board of trustees, according to
the report, as well as the church's council of bishops and general
board, both of which oversee AME Church administrative functions.
Harris reportedly emptied his office and absconded prior to a
general board meeting at the end of January, where church staffers
revealed over $90 million had gone missing from Symetra annuity
investments, a pension account that had a value of almost $127
million just seven months prior. Harris, they shared, was the sole
person who knew details about the pension account.
Further investigation uncovered that tens of millions of dollars
from the Symetra account had been allocated to several risky
investments funds including transfers to Motorskill Ventures Group
and the Financial Freedom Fund , plus into a reportedly problematic
land deal in Key Marco Island, Florida.
Harris had a prior suit in July 2006 dismissed on technicalities
where he was accused of mismanagement of annuity funds.
On October 7, the AME reported to church members "a material loss
in the value of one or more of its departmental investments." The
message, from the office of Dr. Jeffrey Cooper, the AME general
secretary, was released as a statement from the church's Council of
Bishops.
"A comprehensive audit and review of the Department, the subject
investments and the fiduciaries overseeing the retirement funds and
other accounts is underway," says the statement. "The review is
being conducted by an independent law firm and accounting firm. A
report with detailed findings has been requested and will be made
available publicly upon its receipt."
"The Department has advised that all life insurance coverage
provided to participants has not been affected by the value of the
departmental investments, which are outside the life insurance
program," it continued. "As a result, life insurance beneficiaries
will receive the full value of any valid policy claim."
The Post and Courier report adds that The Wall Street Journal
published an in-depth report in March this year about the
suspension of payments by the AME Church. The outlet initiated an
investigation that included federal authorities. In its revelation,
the newspaper said the church warned of "a possible financial
crime."
Rev. Dr. Jeffery B. Cooper issued a statement from the Department
of Retirement Services following the WSJ report sharing the
"devastating news that the AME Church . . . . may have been the
victim of a financial crime." His message added few new details but
assured the flock that the remaining funds, and new funds coming
in, were in an account safe from harm.
"What we're seeking is full restoration of the retirement fund,
plus enrolling anyone who should have been enrolled," Dara Smith, a
senior attorney for the AARP Foundation, told The Post and Courier.
"We just want to make people whole. . . . . The goal here is just
to get people what they were promised."
The class-action lawsuit - which was filed on March 22 - will now
have be certified by a federal court to continue. At which time it
will move into the notification process giving all interested
parties time to respond and opt-out should they choose. [GN]
AFRICAN RAINBOW: Pays R320-M to Silicosis Claimants in Mining Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ciaran Ryan at moneyweb.co.za reports that it's been a decade since
gold miners afflicted by the lung disease silicosis first launched
a class action suit seeking compensation from 30 gold mining
companies on the grounds that the mines did little to protect their
safety.
Settlement was eventually reached with six mining companies in July
2019, when the Gauteng High Court approved a R5 billion class
action settlement. The claims date back to March 1965, creating the
added complexity of tracking down miners who have long since
retired or, in the case of those who have passed on, putting
systems in place to allow beneficiaries to claim.
This week the Tshiamiso Trust, which was set up more than a year
ago to verify claims and disburse funds to affected miners,
disclosed that it had paid out more than R320 million to 3 600
claimants. Claims are now being paid out at the rate of R3 million
to R4 million a day.
Richard Spoor, the attorney who filed the class action suit, argued
that tens of thousands of miners had contracted silicosis as a
result of breathing silica dust during their work and had suffered
irreparable lung impairment.
In May 2016, after years of technical argument, the South Gauteng
High Court allowed the class action to proceed, a decision that was
immediately appealed by the mining houses.
A settlement was reached with the six mining companies in May 2018,
and ratified by the high court roughly a year later.
Among the companies cited as defendants were African Rainbow
Minerals, AngloGold Ashanti, Gold Fields and Harmony Gold.
'Monumental Undertaking'
Says Daniel Kotton, CEO of Tshiamiso Trust: "It has been a
monumental undertaking to get to this point, but the traction that
we've gained is proof that the system, partnerships and processes
that we put in place are working. That said, we are continually
upgrading our systems, increasing efficiencies, and expanding our
operational capabilities to build on this momentum and speed up the
claims process further.
"This includes furthering our system automation and working with
the mines to digitise service records dating as far back as 1965."
Over 81 766 mineworkers or families of mineworkers have lodged a
claim with the trust to date, and 35 000 medical examinations have
been conducted.
Currently, 30 to 40 claims are being paid per day. Kotton was the
first executive to be appointed (in October 2020). "Through our
partner, the mining workforce management solutions company Teba, we
have 54 sites across the region where people can visit and lodge a
claim.
"We have a department dedicated to finding as much documentation as
we can, bearing in mind digitalisation of mine workers only really
started to happen in the 1990s."
Even where documentation is patchy, Kotton says the trust is able
to assist in verifying the claim. "Some 90% of claims come through
the call centre, and if eligible to claim, then they need to appear
at a site office a few weeks later for the lodgement of the claim.
They will be asked to bring documents if they are not already on
the computer system. Biometrics are logged on the system, documents
uploaded and the claim is then lodged.
"There are two classes of disease that the trust will pay out on,
tuberculosis and silicosis, so we book a benefit medical
examination to verify the claimant has one of the conditions
allowable for payout."
Processes are also in place for the beneficiaries and descendants
of deceased miners to lodge claims.
Checks and balances
The payout process is strictly governed by the trust, with various
checks and balances in place to ensure only valid claims are paid.
Claims are usually settled within six to nine months of being made.
"That's not due to inefficiency, but because of the procedures in
place to make sure only valid claims are paid," says Kotton.
"Unfortunately, for every claim paid, many more are rejected due to
various provisions stipulated in the Trust Deed."
Reasons a claim may be rejected include:
-- The mineworker did not carry out risk work at one of the 82
qualifying gold mines during the time period stipulated in the
Trust Deed (March 12, 1965 to December 10, 2019);
-- The medical records do not show evidence of either of the two
compensable diseases - TB or silicosis;
-- A lung function test could not be performed by the claimant;
and/or
-- The claimant was part of a previous settlement agreement and
cannot also claim through the Tshiamiso Trust. [GN]
AISEN GILL & ASSOCIATES: Lightfoot Files FDCPA Suit in D. Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aisen, Gill &
Associates LLP, et al. The case is styled as Landria Lightfoot,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Aisen, Gill & Associates LLP, Clark County Collection Service, LLC,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00608 (D. Nev., April 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Aisen, Gill & Associates LLP -- https://aisengill.com/ -- provides
comprehensive legal services in the areas of criminal defense,
immigration, personal injury, and alternative dispute.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert M Tzall, Esq.
CONTEMPORARY LEGAL SOLUTIONS PLLC
2551 N Green Valley Pkwy Building C, Suite 303
Henderson, NV 89014
Phone: (702) 666-0233
Email: office@contemporarylegalsolutions.com
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Lewis Sues Over Mislabeled Soda Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
CLIVE LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC.; and DOES 1
through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02453 (C.D.
Cal., April 12, 2022) is a class action seeking to redress the
Defendant's pervasive pattern of deceptive, false, misleading, and
otherwise improper advertising, sales and marketing practices of
its Signature Select brand of club soda.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the packaging
containing the twelve-pack box of the Product was fraudulent and
misleading because the box ("Outer Packaging") clearly displayed
false information about the sodium level of the Product. From at
least January 2021 until September of that same year, the Outer
Packaging stated that the Product contained "0 mg" of sodium.
However, the can itself noted that the Product, in fact, contained
40 mg of sodium, not 0 mg. Consumers could not look at the can
without purchasing the Product.
The Defendant knew they were misleading consumers in this way and
did it purposefully to mislead in order to gain a larger market
share for the Product. The Plaintiff would not have purchased the
Product if he had known the truth.
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC. retails food products. The Company
distributes fruits, vegetables, canned items, and other related
goods. Albertsons Companies serves customers in the United States.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel M. Gordon, Esq.
Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Telephone: (818) 991-8080
Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
Email: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
jgordon@marlinsaltzman.com
ALBERTSONS LLC: Sadlowski Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Albertsons LLC. The
case is styled as Sophia Sadlowski, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Walmart, Inc., Does 1 through 50, Case
No. CGC22599110 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 11,
2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Albertsons Companies, Inc. -- https://albertsonscompanies.com/ --
is an American grocery company founded and headquartered in Boise,
Idaho.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Gallo, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. GALLO
12702 Via Cortina, Suite 500
Del Mar, CA 92014-3798
Phone: 858-509-3652
Fax: 858-509-3717
AMERICAN TUNA: Craig Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JEFFREY CRAIG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AMERICAN TUNA, INC., Case No.
1:21cv-09125, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on April 8, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00473-JLS-MSB to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of express
warranty, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the New York General Business Law by making false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its American Tuna brand products.
American Tuna, Inc. is a food manufacturer, with its principal
place of business located in Bonita, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
10 Byron Place, # 402
Larchmont, NY 10538
Telephone: (646) 342-2019
E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Caicedo Seeks Conditional Collective Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EUGENIA CAICEDO, on behalf
of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. THE ANTHEM
COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-05642-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting bid for
conditional collective certification.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 25, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rpPTrK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 W. 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Putative Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Array Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 4, 2022, that it is facing a putative
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York in May 14, 2021, against the company and
certain officers and directors alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1933.
Said action alleges misstatements and/or omissions in the company's
registration statements and prospectuses related to the company's
October 2020 initial public offering, the company's December 2020
follow-on offering and the company's March 2021 follow-on offering
during the putative class period of October 14, 2020 through May
11, 2021.
Array Technologies is a manufacturer of ground-mounting systems
used in solar energy projects.
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Stockholder Suit in NY Court
------------------------------------------------------
Array Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 4, 2022, that in June 30, 2021, a
putative class action was filed in the Southern District of New
York against the Company and certain officers and directors
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 alleging
misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the company's
registration statements and prospectuses related to the company's
IPO, the company's 2020 Follow-On Offering, and the company's 2021
Follow-On Offering during the putative class period of October 14,
2020 through May 11, 2021.
Array Technologies is a manufacturer of ground-mounting systems
used in solar energy projects.
ASSESSOR OF NEW HYDE PARK: Yin Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Village of New Hyde Park, et al. The case is styled as Li Yin, All
other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A,
Petitioner v. The Assessor of the Village of New Hyde Park, The
Board of Assessment Review of the Village of New Hyde Park,
Respondents, Case No. 604797/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty.,
April 12, 2022).
The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."
New Hyde Park -- https://vnhp.org/ -- is a village in the Towns of
Hempstead and North Hempstead in Nassau County, on Long Island, in
New York, United States.[BN]
AT&T SERVICES: Bare Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AT&T Services Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as William Jeff Bare, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AT&T Services Inc., Does 1 - 50,
Case No. 34-2022-00317592-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., March 30, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as "Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."
AT&T Services, Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- provides
telecommunication services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
THE MAURO LAW FIRM APLC
790 E Colorado Blvd., Fl. 9
Pasadena, CA 91101-2193
Phone: 626-698-0048
Fax: 626-698-0049
Email: greg@maurolawfirm.net
AVENUE MONTAIGNE: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avenue Montaigne,
Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Avenue
Montaigne, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02965 (S.D.N.Y., April 11,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Avenue Montaigne Inc. -- https://avenuemontaigne.com/ -- is an
apparel & fashion company based out in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
BELMONT VILLAGE: Bacchus Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARTHA BACCHUS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BELMONT VILLAGE, LP and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV06621, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
April 8, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-02379 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay sick leave, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to pay all wages
upon termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements,
unfair competition, and civil penalties.
Belmont Village, LP is a provider of assisted living, independent
living, and memory care programs in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Ranen, Esq.
Daniel D. Spencer, Esq.
Kelley M. Fox, 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
Daniel.Spencer@lewisbrisbois.com
Kelley.Fox@lewisbrisbois.com
BENIHANA INC: Kim Class Certification Bid Tossed
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YOUNGSUK KIM, an
individual, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. BENIHANA, INC, a Florida corporation, Case
No. 5:19-cv-02196-JWH-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John W.
Holcomb entered an order:
1. denying the Maronick motion;
2. granting the Forister motion;
3. denying the Class Certification motion; and
4. directing the parties to confer forthwith and to file no
later than 12:00 noon on March 11, 2022, a Joint Report
advising the Court of their proposed case schedule or, if
the parties cannot agree, of each party's proposed case
schedule and the reasons for disagreement with the other
party's proposal.
Before the Court in this class action case are the motion of the
Plaintiff Youngsuk Kim for class certification and the motions of
Defendant Benihana, Inc. to exclude the opinions of Kim's retained
experts, Dr. Thomas J. Maronick and Dr. Eric F. Forister.
Benihana is an American restaurant company founded by Hiroaki Aoki
in New York City in 1964 and currently based in Aventura, Florida.
It owns or franchises 116 Japanese-influenced restaurants around
the world, including its flagship Benihana Teppanyaki brand, as
well as the Haru and RA Sushi restaurants.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vh6GP0 at no extra charge.[CC]
CARDINAL HEALTH: Health Care Employees Seek to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUISIANA SHERIFFS'
PENSION & RELIEF FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. CARDINAL HEALTH, INC., et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-03347-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Lead Plaintiff 1199SEIU
Health Care Employees Pension Fund asks the Court to enter an
order:
1. certifying under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
23(b)(3), a class consisting of the following:
"All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Cardinal
Health, Inc. common stock between March 2, 2015 and May 2,
2018, inclusive;"
Excluded from the Class are Cardinal, George S. Barrett,
Donald M. Casey, Jr., Michael C. Kaufmann, Jorge M. Gomez,
and David J. Wilson, the current and Class Period officers
and directors of the Company, the members of the immediate
families, and the legal representatives, affiliates,
heirs, successors-in-interest or assigns of any such
excluded party, and any entity in which such excluded
persons have or had a controlling interest; and
2. appointing itself as Class Representative and Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel for the Class.
Cardinal Health is an American multinational health care services
company, and the 14th highest revenue generating company in the
United States.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 25,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37ceolz
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Lead Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Murray, Esq.
MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
1114 Dublin Road
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 488-0400
Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
E-mail: murray@mmmb.com
- and -
Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq.
Henry Rosen, Esq.
Tor Gronborg, Esq.
Laurie L. Largent, Esq.
Jennifer N. Caringal, Esq.
Christopher R. Kinnon, Esq.
J. Marco Janoski Gray, Esq.
Megan A. Rossi, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: spenceb@rgrdlaw.com
henryr@rgrdlaw.com
torg@rgrdlaw.com
llargent@rgrdlaw.com
jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com
ckinnon@rgrdlaw.com
mjanoski@rgrdlaw.com
mrossi@rgrdlaw.com
CHARTER FOODS: Spencer Files ADA Suit in E.D. Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charter Foods, Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Spencer, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Charter Foods, Inc., Charter Central, LLC,
John Doe 1 to 25, Case No. 3:22-cv-00021-GFVT (E.D. Ky., April 12,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Charter Foods, Inc. -- https://www.charterfoodscareers.com/ -- was
founded in 1997. The Company's line of business includes the retail
sale of prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Peterson, Esq.
GOLDEN LAW OFFICE, PLLC
771 Corporate Drive, Suite 800
Lexington, KY 40503
Phone: (859) 469-5000
Fax: (859) 469-5001
Email: jpeterson@goldenlawoffice.com
CHRISTIE BUSINESS: Strode Files Suit in C.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Christie Business
Holdings Company, P.C. The case is styled as Michele L. Strode, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Christie
Business Holdings Company, P.C., (d/b/a "Christie Clinic"), Case
No. 2:22-cv-02081-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., April 12, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Christie Clinic -- https://www.christieclinic.com/ -- is one of the
largest physician-owned, multi-specialty group medical practices in
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (847) 208-4585
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
COCA-COLA BOTTLERS: Claims in Anderson's ERISA Complaint Trimmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIMARIO ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of the
Coca-Cola Bottlers' Association 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS'
ASSOCIATION; THE COCA-COLA BOTTLERS' ASSOCIATION 401(K) SAVINGS
PLAN BENEFIT COMMITTEE; STEPHANIE R. GRIFFIN; ANN BURTON; SUZY
HIGGINBOTHAM; JOHN GOULD; and JOHN AND JANE DOE DEFENDANTS4-30,
Defendants, Case No. 21-2054-JWL (D. Kan.), Judge John W. Lungstrum
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas ranted in
part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's second amended complaint.
I. Background
The action, brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA), comes before the Court on the Defendants'
motion to dismiss, by which the Defendants seek dismissal of the
claims asserted in the Plaintiff's second amended complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6).
Defendant Coca-Cola Bottlers' Association ("CCBA") is an
association of independent companies that bottle and distribute
Coca-Cola products. CCBA offers various employee benefit programs
to its members, including a 401(k) retirement plan ("the Plan").
The Plan is a defined contribution plan, a type of plan in which
participants hold individual accounts that receive contributions
from the employee and the employer, which may be invested at the
participant's choosing in various investment options in a menu
provided by the plan. The Plaintiff was employed by Heartland
Coca-Cola Bottling Co., LLC, a member of CCBA, and he participated
in the Plan. The Plan was administered on behalf of CCBA by
defendant The Coca-Cola Bottlers' Association 401(k) Savings Plan
Benefit Committee, and the individual defendants were members of
the Committee at relevant times.
By his second amended complaint, the Plaintiff asserts claims
against defendants under Section 404(a) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section
1104(a). He asserts those claims on his own behalf, on behalf of
the Plan, and on behalf of a putative class of participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan since Feb. 1, 2015.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duty of prudence under ERISA by allowing the Plan to offer
investment options that charged excessively high costs as a
percentage of the amount invested in that product. As a part of
that claim, he alleges that the Defendants acted imprudently by
having the Plan offer retail share classes of mutual funds instead
of lower-cost institutional share classes of the same funds; by
failing to offer lower-cost collective investment trust ("CIT")
versions of certain T. Rowe Price Target Date funds in the Plans;
and by failing to offer lower-cost funds that were substantially
similar to funds offered by the Plan.
The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants did cause the
Plan to offer some lower-cost options in 2019, with participants'
holdings in some cases being transferred automatically to the new
options, but that the Defendants nevertheless breached their duty
by failing to make those changes earlier. The Plaintiff also
alleges that defendants breached their duty of prudence by allowing
the Plan to pay excessive direct fees to Wells Fargo, the Plan's
recordkeeper.
The Plaintiff also claims that defendants breached their duty of
loyalty by allowing the Plan to include investment options offered
by Wells Fargo. Plaintiff further claims that defendants breached
duties of loyalty and prudence with respect to the Plan's
investment in the Coca-Cola Common Stock Fund, which included stock
in a single company. In 2005, the Plan effectively froze that
investment option by no longer allowing new investments into that
fund because of its non-diverse nature, but the Plan allowed
participants to retain their holdings in the fund. Finally, the
Plaintiff claims that all defendants are liable for other
Defendants' breaches as co-fiduciaries under 29 U.S.C. Section
1105.
By the present motion, the Defendants seek dismissal of the
Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) because of
a lack of constitutional standing. In the alternative, the
Defendants contend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) that the
Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim for relief.
II. Discussion
A. Standing
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff lacks constitutional
standing with respect to his claims. To establish Article III
standing, a plaintiff must show (1) an injury in fact, (2) a
sufficient causal connection between the injury and the conduct
complained of, and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be
redressed by a favorable decision."
In his complaint, Judge Lungstrum finds that the Plaintiff has
specifically alleged that he invested in 33 investment options
offered by the Plan, including the Coca-Cola fund. He says, the
Plaintiff's account statements (submitted by the Defendants as part
of their factual challenge to jurisdiction) show that the Plaintiff
did not in fact invest in that fund. Moreover, the Plaintiff's
allegation is implausible on its face in light of his separate
allegation that the fund was frozen by the Plan in 2005, with no
new investments in that fund permitted. Accordingly, Judge
Lungstrum resolves this factual issue in favor of the Defendants
and finds that the Plaintiff did not in fact invest in the
Coca-Cola fund. He therefore dismisses the Plaintiff's claims
relating to that fund for lack of standing, and the Defendants'
motion is granted to that extent.
B. Claim of Imprudence Concerning Investment Option
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Defendants move for
dismissal of the Plaintiff's claim that the Defendants breached
their duty of prudence in selecting and failing to remove various
investment options offered by the Plan because of the
administrative costs of those options (assessed as a percentage of
the investment).
The Court will dismiss a cause of action for failure to state a
claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) only when the factual
allegations fail to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face," or when an issue of law is dispositive. The complaint
need not contain detailed factual allegations, but a plaintiff's
obligation to provide the grounds of entitlement to relief requires
more than labels and conclusions; a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do. The Court must accept
the facts alleged in the complaint as true, even if doubtful in
fact, and view all reasonable inferences from those facts in favor
of the plaintiff.
Judge Lungstrum concludes that the Plaintiff's allegations in
totality are sufficient to state a plausible imprudence claim based
on the costs of certain funds offered by the Plan. He concludes
from the totality of the complaint that the Plaintiff has not based
his imprudence claims solely on allegations that better
alternatives were available to defendants in selecting or retaining
the Plan's investment options, but that his complaint does offer
additional facts supporting a reasonable and plausible inference
that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of prudence with
respect to the costs of some of the Plan's options. Judge Lungstrum
therefore denies the motion to dismiss as it relates to these
claims.
C. Claim of Excess Recordkeeping Fees
The Defendants also seek dismissal of the Plaintiff's claim that
the Defendants breached their duty of prudence by allowing the Plan
to pay unreasonably excessive direct recordkeeping fees to Wells
Fargo. The Plaintiff has alleged that the fees paid to Wells Fargo
were not tied to the amount or nature of the work performed; that
the fees far exceeded the reasonable market rate paid by similar
plans according to industry survey data; and that the Defendants
failed to monitor the fees properly and failed to negotiate
reductions in accord with their duty of prudence.
Judge Lungstrum agrees with the Defendants that the Plaintiff has
failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim. In his
complaint, the Plaintiff has not provided any detail concerning the
particular services for which Wells Fargo received the allegedly
unreasonable payments of fees; nor has he stated what a reasonable
payment would have been, or identified another company that would
have performed the same services for less. Thus, the Plaintiff's
mere allegation that the Plan paid more in direct fees than other
plans does not create any reasonable or plausible inference that
the Plan imprudently paid an unreasonable amount of direct
recordkeeping fees to Wells Fargo. Judge Lungstrum therefore grants
the motion and dismisses this claim.
D. Claim of Breach of Duty of Loyalty
The Plaintiff also asserts a claim that defendants breached their
duty of loyalty by allowing the Plan to offer certain higher-cost,
low-performing Wells Fargo funds while also paying fees to Wells
Fargo as recordkeeper. The Defendants seek dismissal of this claim,
arguing that the Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to
create a reasonable inference of a breach of the duty of loyalty.
Judge Lungstrum concludes that the factual allegations, taken
together and presumed true, do not merely show incidental benefits
to Wells Fargo, but also give rise to a reasonable inference that
defendants acted with the purpose of benefitting Wells Fargo. Such
allegations distinguish the case from cases cited by Defendants in
which plaintiffs were found not to have alleged sufficient facts to
support this claim. Accordingly, Judge Lungstrum denies the instant
motion as it relates to this claim.
E. Claims of Co-Fiduciary Liability
The Plaintiff alleges that each Defendant is liable for breaches of
duty by co-fiduciaries pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1105(a). The
Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's allegations of co-fiduciary
liability are not sufficient to state a claim under Section 1105(a)
because he has merely parroted the statute and has not made
detailed allegations about how specific defendants participated in,
concealed, enabled, or had knowledge of another fiduciary's breach.
Alternatively, the Defendants argue that this claim should be
dismissed as asserted against CCBA because that party delegated
responsibilities for administering the Plan to the Committee and
thus may avail itself of the "safe harbor" provision of 29 U.S.C.
Section 1105(c).
Judge Lungstrum says, the Court has previously dismissed
co-fiduciary claims where the plaintiff did nothing more than
parrot the statute. And, as the Plaintiff notes in his response, --
and as the Defendants do not dispute in their reply -- co-fiduciary
liability under Section 1105(a) is expressly excluded from the safe
harbor provided by Section 1105(c).
Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the co-fiduciary
liability claims is granted with respect to the individual
defendants. The motion is also granted to the extent that the Court
has dismissed underlying direct liability claims on which claims of
co-fiduciary liability may be based. The motion is otherwise denied
with respect to this claim.
III. Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, Judge Lungstrum granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The motion is
granted with respect to the Plaintiff's claims related to the
Coca-Cola Stock Fund, the claims related to the direct payment of
recordkeeping fees, and the claims against the individual
defendants for co-fiduciary liability; those claims are hereby
dismissed. The motion is otherwise denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/wmpc935t from Leagle.com.
COGNYTE GROUP: Faces Suit Over Stock Option Dispute
---------------------------------------------------
Cognyte Software 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 it is facing a
shareholder suit filed by former employees with regards to their
stock option.
In March 2009, one of its former employees, Ms. Deutsch, commenced
legal actions in Israel against its primary Israeli subsidiary,
Cognyte Technologies Israel Ltd. (Case Number 4186/09) and against
its former affiliate Comverse Technology, Inc. (CTI), Case Number
1335/09. Also, in March 2009, a former employee of Comverse Limited
(CTI's primary Israeli subsidiary at the time), Ms. Roni Katriel,
commenced similar legal actions in Israel against Comverse Limited
(Case Number 3444/09). In these actions, the plaintiffs generally
sought to certify class action suits against the defendants on
behalf of current and former employees of Cognyte IL and Comverse
Limited who had been granted stock options in Verint and/or CTI and
who were allegedly damaged as a result of a suspension on option
exercises during an extended filing delay period that is discussed
in Verint's and CTI's historical public filings. On June 7, 2012,
the Tel Aviv District Court, where the cases had been filed or
transferred, allowed the plaintiffs to consolidate and amend their
complaints against the three defendants: Cognyte IL, CTI, and
Comverse Limited.
On October 31, 2012, CTI distributed all of the outstanding shares
of common stock of Comverse, Inc., its principal operating
subsidiary and parent company of Comverse Limited, to CTI's
shareholders. In the period leading up to the Comverse Share
Distribution, CTI either sold or transferred substantially all of
its business operations and assets (other than its equity ownership
interests in Verint and in its then-subsidiary, Comverse, Inc.) to
Comverse, Inc. or to unaffiliated third parties. As the result of
these transactions, Comverse, Inc. became an independent company
and ceased to be affiliated with CTI, and CTI ceased to have any
material assets other than its equity interests in Verint. Prior to
the completion of the Comverse Share Distribution, the plaintiffs
sought to compel CTI to set aside up to $150.0 million in assets to
secure any future judgment, but the District Court did not rule on
this motion. In February 2017, Mavenir Inc. became
successor-in-interest to Comverse, Inc.
On February 4, 2013, Verint acquired the remaining CTI shell
company in a merger transaction. As a result of the CTI Merger,
Verint assumed certain rights and liabilities of CTI, including any
liability of CTI arising out of the foregoing legal actions.
However, under the terms of a Distribution Agreement entered into
in connection with the Comverse Share Distribution, Verint, as
successor to CTI, is entitled to indemnification from Comverse,
Inc. (now Mavenir) for any losses Verint may suffer in its capacity
as successor to CTI related to the foregoing legal actions. Under
the Separation and Distribution Agreement entered into with Verint
in connection with the spin-off, we agreed to indemnify Verint for
our share of any losses Verint may suffer related to the foregoing
legal actions either in its capacity as successor to CTI, to the
extent not indemnified by Mavenir, or due to its former ownership
of us and Cognyte IL.
Following an unsuccessful mediation process, on August 28, 2016,
the District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the
suit as a class action with respect to all claims relating to
Verint stock options and approved the plaintiffs' motion to certify
the suit as a class action with respect to claims of current or
former employees of Comverse Limited (now part of Mavenir) or of
Cognyte IL who held unexercised CTI stock options at the time CTI
suspended option exercises. The court also ruled that the merits of
the case would be evaluated under New York law.
As a result of this ruling (which excluded claims related to Verint
stock options from the case), one of the original plaintiffs in the
case, Ms. Deutsch, was replaced by a new representative plaintiff,
Mr. David Vaaknin. CTI appealed portions of the District Court's
ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court. On August 8, 2017, the Israeli
Supreme Court partially allowed CTI's appeal and ordered the case
to be returned to the District Court to determine whether a cause
of action exists under New York law based on the parties' expert
opinions.
Following two unsuccessful rounds of mediation in mid to late 2018
and in mid-2019, the proceedings resumed. On April 16, 2020, the
District Court accepted plaintiffs' application to amend the motion
to certify a class action and set deadlines for filing.
Cognyte is into investigative analytics software that caters to
governments and enterprises providng solutions to accelerate and
conduct investigations and derive insights, with which they
identify, neutralize, and tackle threats to national security,
personal safety, business continuity and various forms of criminal
activity.
DEUTSCHE BANK: Karimi Suit Moved From D.N.J. to S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALI KARIMI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DEUTSCHE BANK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, JOHN
CRYAN, CHRISTIAN SEWING, and JAMES VON MOLTKE, Case No.
2:20-cv-08978, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on April 7, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-02854-JSR to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding Deutsche
Bank's business, operational and compliance policies to
artificially trade Deutsche Bank securities at inflated prices
between November 7, 2017, and July 6, 2020.
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft is a financial services company
headquartered in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and –
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
- and –
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
DREAMY CREATIONS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dreamy Creations,
Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Dreamy
Creations, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02962 (S.D.N.Y., April 11,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dreamy Creations -- https://www.dreamycreations.com/ -- creates
high quality fresh cupcakes packed into jars shipped fresh
Nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
DUNNE MANNING: Williams NYSHRL Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAMIL WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DUNNE MANNING, INC. and DUNNE MANNING
STORES, LLC, Case No. 603976/2022, was removed from the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on April 11,
2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-02081 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the New
York State Human Rights Law and the New York Fair Credit Reporting
Act.
Dunne Manning, Inc. is an oil and energy company, with a principal
place of business in Pennsylvania.
Dunne Manning Stores, LLC is an operator of convenience stores,
with a principal place of business in Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Alexander W. Bogdan, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
101 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10178
Telephone: (212) 878-7900
E-mail: ABogdan@FoxRothschild.com
EFG GENERAL: Racca Contract Suit Removed to E.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RONDA RACCA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. EFG GENERAL PARTNER CORP., EDUCATION
FUTURES MANAGEMENT COMPANY, EDUCATION FUTURES GROUP, LLC, COMPUTER
CAREER CENTER, L.P. d/b/a Vista College, PROSPECT PARTNERS, LLC,
JIM TOLBERT, MICHAEL MCINERNEY, and LOUIS KENTER, Case No.
D-208582, was removed from the District Court of Jefferson County,
Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
on April 7, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 1:22-cv-00142-MAC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' contract violations.
EFG General Partner Corp. is a corporation based in Texas.
Education Futures Management Company is an educational advisory
service provider based in Texas.
Education Futures Group, LLC is an educational consultant in
Richardson, Texas.
Computer Career Center, LP, doing business as Vista College,
operates as a university, headquartered in Richardson, Texas.
Prospect Partners, LLC is a capital market company in Chicago,
Illinois. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Joshua Benjamin Baker, Esq.
Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. - Birmingham
1901 Sixth Ave. North, Suite 2400
Regions/Harbert Plaza
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 254-1000
Facsimile: (205) 254-1999
E-mail: jbaker@maynardcooper.com
EG AMERICA LLC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EG America, LLC. The
case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. EG America, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02992 (S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
EG America -- http://www.eg-america.com/-- is one of the
fastest-growing convenience store retailers in the United States,
committed to becoming America's #1 'one-stop' destination.[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
EVENTIDE CREDIT: Bid to Dismiss Duggan's 2nd Amended Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANA DUGGAN, individually and on behalf of persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MATT MARTORELLO and EVENTIDE
CREDIT ACQUISITIONS, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-12277-JGD
(D. Mass.), Magistrate Judge Judith Gail Dein of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Defendant
Martorello's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Class
Action Complaint.
I. Background
Plaintiff Duggan, a Massachusetts resident, has brought the
putative class action against Martorello and his company, Eventide,
alleging that the Defendants engaged in an internet-based predatory
lending scheme in which they charged Duggan and other consumers
unconscionably high interest rates, often exceeding 500%, for
short-term loans. According to Duggan, Martorello and Eventide
sought to evade state and federal laws prohibiting usurious lending
practices by partnering with the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa Indians ("LVD" or the "Tribe") to set up a
lending entity.
Under this so-called "rent-a-tribe" scheme, LVD, through a company
known as Big Picture Loans, LLC, allegedly acted as the nominal
lender while Martorello and Eventide operated and exercised actual
control over the lending business under the cloak of the Tribe's
sovereign immunity. Duggan claims that this arrangement enabled the
defendants to take advantage of the privileges and immunities
available to Native American tribes to carry out their fraudulent
enterprise and enrich themselves at the expense of borrowers.
By her Second Amended Class Action Complaint, Duggan has asserted
claims against Martorello and Eventide for violations of
Massachusetts lending, licensing and consumer protection laws,
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, 18 U.S.C. Section s 1961 et seq. ("RICO"), unjust enrichment
and declaratory judgment. Additionally, Duggan is seeking to
certify a class and a subclass of similarly situated borrowers
residing in Massachusetts and in other states around the country.
The matter is before the Court on "Matt Martorello's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Class Action Complaint." By his
motion, Martorello contends that all of Duggan's claims against him
must be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(2) because none of the conduct complained of that
occurred in Massachusetts was carried out or directed by him, and
because Duggan has failed to show that it would be appropriate for
this court to exercise personal jurisdiction over him under RICO's
nationwide service of process provision.
In addition, Martorello contends that Duggan's claims against him
must be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because her
allegations are conclusory, speculative and inconsistent with
relevant documents, a choice of law provision contained in Duggan's
loan agreement with Big Picture Loans defeats her claims in the
action, and Duggan has otherwise failed to state a claim against
Martorello with respect to any alleged theory of liability.
II. Analysis
Ms. Duggan has asserted claims against Martorello and Eventide for
a declaratory judgment declaring that the choice of law, forum
selection, class action waiver and dispute resolution provisions of
Big Picture Loans' loan agreements are void and unenforceable as to
Massachusetts consumers (Count I); violations of Massachusetts
anti-usury and consumer protection laws (Counts II-V); RICO
violations (Counts VI-IX); and unjust enrichment (Counts X-XI).
Mr. Martorello has moved to dismiss all of these Counts on the
grounds that they fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted and that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over him.
The Supreme Court has instructed that "a federal court generally
may not rule on the merits of a case without first determining that
it has jurisdiction over the category of claim in suit
(subject-matter jurisdiction) and the parties (personal
jurisdiction)," citing Sinochem Int'l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int'l
Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-31, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 1191, 167 L.
Ed. 2d 15 (2007). Accordingly, Judge Dein turns first to the
question of personal jurisdiction.
A. Personal Jurisdiction
Mr. Martorello argues that as "an individual residing in Texas with
no property or connection to Massachusetts, he is not subject to
the personal jurisdiction of the Court." She disagrees and finds
that Martorello has sufficient contacts with Massachusetts to
support the Court's exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over
him. Accordingly, his motion to dismiss on this basis must be
denied.
In addition, a review of the cited exhibits reveals that the
language quoted in paragraph 71 is consistent with the underlying
evidence. Accordingly, Martorello's assertion that Duggan "makes no
effort to reconcile her allegations with her own exhibits" is
belied by the record. In any case, Judge Dein finds that even if
Martorello's true motivation for restructuring the lending business
was entirely financial, this would not alter the alleged fact that
he continued to maintain control over the lending enterprise. His
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction must therefore
be denied.
B. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
Judge Dein turns next to Martorello's motion to dismiss Duggan's
claims for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). Martorello is seeking to dismiss all of Duggan's claims,
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), on the grounds that the allegations
against him are conclusory, speculative and inconsistent with
relevant documents; the choice of law provision contained in
Duggan's loan agreement "mandates application of tribal law and a
swift end to Plaintiff's accusations" against him; and the
Plaintiff has failed to state claims against him for violations of
RICO, Massachusetts lending laws, unjust enrichment or a
declaratory judgment.
Judge Dein denied Martorello's motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6) as well. First, she holds that Duggan has supported her
factual allegations with exhibits describing, inter alia,
communications regarding Martorello's role and the role of his
companies in the alleged lending scheme, servicing agreements
between Martorello's companies and the Tribe, and the restructuring
of the lending business. The Complaint in the case is more than
sufficient to pass muster under Rule 8.
Second, because Duggan has shown, at this stage, that enforcing the
choice of law clause contravenes Massachusetts' strong public
policy against usurious lending, Judge Dein concludes that she has
stated a claim that the choice of law provision is unenforceable.
Therefore, it is unnecessary to address the Plaintiff's remaining
arguments.
Third, Martorello and Eventide have asserted an affirmative defense
that illustrates the existence of a genuine controversy. By their
Eighteenth Affirmative Defense, the Defendants assert that Duggan's
state law claims are barred as a result of the enforceability of
the choice of law provision in her loan documents. Martorello's
efforts to enforce the choice of law provision in connection with
the instant motion further demonstrates the existence of a
controversy between the parties on this matter. Therefore, while
there is some uncertainty as to whether and to what extent the
Plaintiff will continue to pursue her declaratory judgment claim,
the motion to dismiss the claim for a declaratory judgment is
denied at this juncture in the litigation.
Fourth, Duggan alleges that Martorello profited indirectly from
usurious lending practices of which he was fully aware. The fact
that he was not a party to the loan agreement and did not receive
loan repayments directly is insufficient at this stage to defeat
Duggan's state statutory claims. And, assuming, arguendo, that the
Plaintiff will not be able to pierce the corporate veil to hold
Martorello liable, the Complaint is nevertheless sufficient. The
gist of Duggan's allegations against Martorello is that he
orchestrated an elaborate lending scheme in which he used the Tribe
to mask his extensive control over the lending operations and
charge exorbitant interest rates well above the state statutory cap
for short-term loans. For this reason as well, the motion to
dismiss Duggan's state statutory claims is denied.
Fifth, in Counts VI-IX of her Complaint Duggan has asserted claims
against the Defendants for RICO violations pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1962(c), and conspiracy to violate RICO pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1962(d). Martorello has moved to dismiss these
claims on the grounds that Duggan lacks standing to pursue RICO
claims against him, has failed to allege that he engaged in
unlawful conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c), and has
failed to allege that he engaged in a RICO conspiracy in violation
of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d). Judge Dein finds that Duggan has
standing to pursue these claims and has alleged plausible claims
for relief under both sections of the statute.
Lastly, Judge Dein finds that the alleged facts belie Martorello's
assertion that he was nothing more than a creditor of the Tribe's
lending enterprise. Because Duggan has alleged that Martorello
knowingly received payments from Big Picture Loans' usurious
lending operations and benefitted from Duggan's repayments on her
loans, Duggan has stated a plausible claim against Martorello for
unjust enrichment. The motion to dismiss is denied with respect to
Counts X and XI.
III. Conclusion
For all the reasons she set forth, Judge Dein denied Martorello's
Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to
state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Memorandum of
Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wss29ej8 from
Leagle.com.
FOOD 4 LESS: Delgado Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages and Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Delgado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Food 4 Less of California, Inc.; Ralphs Grocery
Company; and Does 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 22CV009140 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Alameda Cty., March 30, 2022), is brought seeking monetary
relief against the Defendants to recover, among other things,
unpaid wages and benefits, interest, attorneys' fees, costs,
expenses, and penalties pursuant to Labor Code.
Through this action, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have
engaged a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the
California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC")
Wage Orders, all of which contribute to the Defendants' deliberate
unfair competition. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and
thereon alleges, that the Defendants have increased their profits
by violating state wage and hour laws by, among other things:
Failing to pay for all hours worked, including minimum and overtime
wages; Failing to timely pay all wages; Failing to pay reporting
time pay; Failing to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu
thereof; Failing to authorize or permit rest breaks or provide
compensation in lieu thereof; Failing to provide accurate itemized
wage statements; Failing to reimburse for all business expenses;
Failing to timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in California from
August of 2018 to July of 2021.
The Defendants operate grocery store shopping centers throughout
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
Annaliz Loera, Esq.
Nicolas W. Tomas, Esq.
LEBE LAW, APLC
777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90021
Phone: (213) 444-1973
Email: Jon@lebelaw.com
Annaliz@lebelaw.com
Nicolas@lebelaw.com
FRIENDS MORE: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Friends More Inc. The
case is styled as Yelitza Picon, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Friends More Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03030 (S.D.N.Y., April 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Friends More Inc. is a domestic business corporation located in New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
GC CLARK LLC: Fails to Offer Rent-Stabilized Lease, Ostrow Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELISE HAZLETT; KATHERYN KELLER; and ZACHARY OSTROW, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GC
CLARK LLC, Defendant, Case No.510721/2022 (N.Y., Sup., April 12,
2022) alleges violation of the Rent Stabilization Code.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is entitled to damages
from the Defendant for rent paid over and above what the Defendant
was legally entitled to charge and collect.
The Defendant, either directly or indirectly, charged the Plaintiff
and the Class market-rate rents or rents otherwise in excess of the
legal regulated rent for their apartments.
GC CLARK LLC is part of the Offices of Real Estate Agents and
Brokers Industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
Jarred I. Kassenoff, Esq.
Roger A. Sachar Jr., Esq.
NEWMAN FERRARA LLP
1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 619-5400
Email: lferrara@nfllp.com
ikassenoff@nfllp.com
rsachar@nfllp.com
GENIUS BRANDS: Faces Putative Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Genius Brands International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report
for the fiscal year ended September 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 4, 2022, that the
company, its Chief Executive Officer, Andy Heyward, and its Chief
Financial Officer, Robert Denton, are named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California and styled "In re Genius Brands
International, Inc. Securities Litigation," Master File No.
2:20-cv-07457.
Initially, the lead plaintiffs alleged generally that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false or misleading
statements regarding the company's business and business prospects,
artificially inflating the company's stock price during an alleged
class period running from March 11, 2020, through July 5, 2020.
Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of the alleged
class of persons who invested in our common stock during the
alleged class period. The defendants moved to dismiss lead
plaintiffs' amended complaint and in a decision issued on August
30, 2021, the court dismissed the amended complaint but granted
lead plaintiffs a further opportunity to plead a claim.
On September 27, 2021, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, naming the same defendants. The new complaint alleges
that the company made numerous false or misleading statements about
the Company's business and business prospects over an alleged class
period running from March 11, 2020, through March 30, 2021, which
they say violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Lead
plaintiffs also allege a "scheme to defraud" during 2020 that
involved several private placements of Company stock with an
allegedly "insider" group of investors that purportedly then issued
press releases that inflated the stock price, after which these
investors purportedly sold their shares at higher prices. None of
these investors is named as a defendant in the securities action.
The lead plaintiffs again seek unspecified damages on behalf of the
alleged class—persons who invested in the company's common stock
during the newly alleged class period. In November 2021, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and the
motion is fully briefed.
Genius Brands International, Inc. is a global content and brand
management company that creates and licenses multimedia content.
GREENSKY INC: Seeks Judgment on Pleadings in Wright Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXISS WRIGHT, et al., v.
GREENSKY, INC., et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-62441-BB (S.D. Fla.),
Greensky asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for
judgment on the Pleadings or, in the alternative, to deny
certification as to any class allegations the Plaintiffs Alexiss
Wright, Jerrod Buck, and Yvonne Buck purport to maintain based on
events occurring subsequent to October 26, 2016, the last date
before GreenSky's loan installment agreements were modified to
include mandatory arbitration and class-waiver provisions, along
with such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Greensky contends that because every alleged putative class member
agreed to an individual arbitration of claims for all loans
obtained after October 26, 2016, there is no basis for any class
beyond October 26, 2016.
Therefore, consistent with the Court's rulings that granted
GreenSky's motion to compel arbitration as to named Plaintiff
Maria Poza and dismissed both Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive
relief and 23(b)(2) class allegations, as well as the overwhelming
caselaw, the Court should dismiss the class allegations or,
alternatively, deny certification as to any potential class for a
timeframe subsequent to October 26, 2016, thereby limiting any
possible class to a timeframe consistent both with the Court's
order as to the Poza arbitration and the fact that no borrower can
litigate a claim against GreenSky in federal court, or pursue a
claim as a proposed class action, after October 26, 2016, the
Defendant Greensky adds.
GreenSky is a financial technology company founded in 2006 based in
Atlanta, Georgia. The company provides technology to banks and
merchants to make loans to consumers for home improvement, solar,
healthcare and other purposes.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 25, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uHIbLV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Irene Oria, Esq.
Barry Goheen, Esq.
FISHERBROYLES, LLP
153 E. Flagler St. #550
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 536-2838
Facsimile: (305) 536-2838
E-mail: irene.oria@fisherbroyles.com
barry.goheen@fisherbroyles.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Darren E. Newhart, Esq.
NEWHART LEGAL, P.A.
P.O. Box 1351
Loxahatchee, FL 33470
Telephone: (561) 331-1806
Facsimile: (561) 473-2946
E-mail: darren@newhartlegal.com
- and -
David Stein, Esq.
Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
505 14th Street, Suite 1110
Oakland, CA 94612-1406
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: ds@classlawgroup.com
kjg@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Bryce B. Bell, Esq.
Mark W. Schmitz, Esq.
Andrew R. Taylor, Esq.
BELL LAW, LLC
2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 886-8206
Facsimile: (816) 817-8500
E-mail: Bryce@BellLawKC.com
MS@BellLawKC.com
AT@BellLawKC.com
- and -
Brian E. Johnson, Esq.
Victoria S. Nugent, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN
SELLER & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
E-mail: vnugent@cohenmilstein.com
bejohnson@cohenmilstein.com
GROUPCAM LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ortiz Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE DAMIAN CASERES ORTIZ a/k/a JOSE CABES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUPCAM,
LLC; ARNOLD GORDON; and STEVE RUBIN, Defendants, Case No.
8:22-cv-00886-TJS (D. Md., April 12, 2022) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages,
wages for missed meal and rest periods.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as laborer/helper.
GROUPCAM, LLC is a commercial shopping center maintenance company
and service business providing vacuum power sweeping, porter
service, and a wide variety of both interior and exterior repair
and maintenance services to owners, developers and property
managers throughout the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
Email: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com
GRUBHUB INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Davitashvili's Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIAM DAVITASHVILI, et al., Plaintiffs v. GRUBHUB
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-3000 (LAK) and
consolidated case (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the
Defendants' joint motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
I. Background
The putative class action involves the contractual relationships
between restaurants and online platforms for restaurant meals. The
amended complaint alleges that three Defendants -- Grubhub, Uber
Technologies, Inc., and Postmates Inc. -- each unlawfully has fixed
prices for restaurant meals by entering into restrictive agreements
with restaurants that preclude those restaurants from charging
lower prices off-platform, i.e., in the "direct" markets for
restaurant meals and/or on other restaurant platforms.
The Plaintiffs claim that Defendants thus have caused them to pay
artificially high prices for restaurant meals. They seek damages
and injunctive relief under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and its
state analogues on behalf of themselves and three nationwide
classes of others similarly situated.
At issue in the lawsuit is the Defendants' practice of imposing
contractual "no price competition clauses" ("NPCCs") on listed
restaurants. All three Defendants' NPCCs prevent their restaurant
customers from charging lower list prices to consumers who dine in
person or who order food takeout or delivery directly from the
restaurant. Grubhub and Uber have more expansive NPCCs, which
prevent their restaurant customers from charging lower prices to
consumers who purchase their meals on rival restaurant platforms.
The amended complaint pleads four counts of vertical price fixing
stemming from these arrangements. Counts I and III charge the
Defendants with unlawfully setting minimum prices in the local
direct markets for restaurant meals (i.e., for dine-in meals and
for meals for takeout and delivery coordinated through the
restaurant). Counts II and IV claim that defendants Grubhub and
Uber similarly have set unlawful minimum prices throughout the
restaurant platform market, both on the national and local levels.
Because restaurant platform commissions force restaurants to raise
their list prices to make money -- or even break even -- on each
transaction, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' NPCCs have
caused anticompetitive effects in the relevant markets and harmed
Plaintiffs directly by causing them to pay supracompetitive prices
for restaurant meals.
Before the Court is the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. They contend that the contracts at issue do not
fix prices in a manner sufficient to state an antitrust claim.
II. Discussion
A. Sufficiency of Relevant Market Allegations
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed plausibly to
allege the relevant markets. They challenge the distinctions among
the Plaintiffs' alleged product markets, arguing that they "fail to
plausibly suggest that ordering from a restaurant (or a restaurant
receiving an order) is not a substitute for ordering the same meal
from a restaurant (or a restaurant receiving an order) via
Defendants' platforms."
This argument is without merit for purposes of this motion, Judge
Kaplan holds. She opines the amended complaint alleges plausibly
that restaurant platforms "provide a service distinct from a
restaurant's website or app (e.g., a Domino's pizza app)" first and
foremost because they aggregate the offerings of many restaurants
in one place. Moreover, the Defendants' cited cases to the contrary
are inapposite. The Plaintiffs' allegations of national and local
Restaurant Platform Markets also are sufficient. The facts alleged
suggest that Defendants do compete nationally, and courts have
recognized the existence of national markets even when market
participants in some sense operate locally.
Having concluded that the Plaintiffs have alleged sufficiently the
relevant product markets, Judge Kaplan proceeds to consider the
Plaintiffs' antitrust claims.
B. Antitrust Claims
1. Counts I and III
Counts I and Ill allege that the Defendants' NPCCs unreasonably
restrain trade in the Direct Takeout and Delivery Market and the
Dine-In. Market in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (Count
I) and its state antitrust law analogues (Count III).
Judge Kaplan opines that the Plaintiffs have alleged plausibly
facts that, if proven, would be direct evidence of anticompetitive
effects in the direct markets resulting from the Defendants' NPCCs.
He says, this evidence is especially strong in regard to
supracompetitive prices. Although the Plaintiffs' comparison of
retailers to restaurant platforms and manufacturers to restaurants
is somewhat strained, the facts they allege in support of their
Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., analysis
paint a plausible picture of the anticompetitive effects allegedly
caused by the Defendants' NPCCs. And the Plaintiffs have pleaded
facts supporting the proposition that "one or more Defendants'
NPCCs restrains more than half of the Direct Markets.'"
All of this, together with the Plaintiffs' well-pleaded allegation
that the Defendants' commission rates match or exceed most
restaurants' profit margins, supports the reasonable inference that
restaurants -- being foreclosed from lowering prices in the direct
markets to attract sales -- have had no choice but to raise prices
in both the platform and direct markets. The Plaintiffs' anecdotal
and survey evidence permits an inference or conclusion that
restaurant owners have done just that.
Judge Kaplan also opines that the direct classes have adequately
alleged facts that support their claims against the Defendants.
They plausibly have alleged antitrust injury under the Second
Circuit's three-step analysis. They identify the Defendants'
imposition of NPCCs as vertical restraints of trade in violation of
the Sherman Act, and they allege actual injury in the form of
supracompetitive prices. This injury is "of the type the antitrust
laws were intended to prevent and flows from that which makes
defendants' acts unlawful."
Judge Kaplan also holds that the direct classes would be efficient
enforcers of the antitrust laws. The injury they sustained by
paying supracompetitive prices was direct. Their interest in
obtaining damages and/or injunctive relief against Defendants'
anticompetitive practices likely would motivate them to pursue
enforcement. Their alleged injury is not impermissibly speculative,
and there is no danger of duplicative recoveries to direct and
indirect victims, as the Plaintiffs are the direct victims of the
alleged restraint and have already paid for their meals.
2. Counts II and IV
On behalf of the Restaurant Platform Class, the Plaintiffs allege
that Defendants Grubhub and Uber's NPCCs unreasonably restrain
trade in the Restaurant Platform Market in violation of Section 1
of the Sherman Act (Count II) and its state antitrust law
analogues
Judge Kaplan holds that the amended complaint alleges plausibly
that Grubhub and Uber's NPCCs create supracompetitive prices for
consumers. In addition to supracompetitive prices, the Plaintiffs
allege plausibly that consumer choice has decreased due to Grubhub
and Uber's NPCCs. The Plaintiffs plead facts that support their
claim that these anticompetitive effects are felt throughout the
relevant markets. They also plead direct evidence of harm to
restaurants in the form of supracompetitive prices.
For much the same reasons as described, it is plausible that
Grubhub and Uber's NPCCs both discourage rival restaurant platforms
from offering lower commissions and allow Grubhub and Uber cover to
raise their own rates. And because of indirect network effects,
platform "stickiness," and the restaurants' need to access as many
potential customers as possible in order to stay in business, it is
reasonable to infer that restaurants have no choice but to accept
Grubhub and Uber's NPCCs.
Judge Kaplan further holds that the Plaintiffs who have purchased
meals from restaurant platforms in the relevant markets are alleged
to have suffered injury in fact and antitrust injury because they
paid supracompetitive prices due to Grubhub and Uber's unlawful
restraints. The amended complaint alleges plausibly also that the
Plaintiffs are likely to be efficient enforcers of the antitrust
laws because they suffered direct pecuniary injury that will
motivate them "to vindicate the public interest in antitrust
enforcement," their injury is concrete rather than speculative, and
Plaintiffs' status as direct victims of the unlawful restraint who
have already paid for the products at issue would likely mitigate
any potential for duplicative recoveries.
Judge Kaplan, having concluded that the Plaintiffs plausibly have
alleged claims under Counts II and IV, considers the Defendants'
arguments in favor of dismissing the Plaintiffs' state law claims
under Counts III and IV.
3. State Law Antitrust Claims
In Counts III and IV, the Plaintiffs allege state law antitrust
violations under the laws of 32 states and U.S. territories. The
Defendants contend that these claims should be dismissed because
the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the Sherman Act,
their "pleading is completely devoid of any allegations concerning
26 of the jurisdictions under whose laws they purport to sue," and
Plaintiffs "have not sufficiently alleged that they can bring a
claim in their individual capacities for violation of any of the
state laws listed in Counts III and IV."
The Defendants' first argument fails because Judge Kaplan holds
that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged their federal claims.
And the Defendants' additional arguments misapprehend the law. The
amended complaint alleges unlawful activity in every relevant
jurisdiction, and indeed throughout the country. Whether a
plaintiff can bring a class action under the state laws of multiple
states is a class certification] question not a question of
standing. It therefore does not affect the outcome of this motion
that the Plaintiffs have alleged only the purchase of restaurant
meals in New York. Judge Kaplan concludes that the Plaintiffs'
state law claims survive the motion to dismiss.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Kaplan denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss in its entirety.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/2de7w9x2 from Leagle.com.
Gregory A. Frank -- info@frankllp.com -- Marvin L. Frank, Asher
Hawkins, FRANK LLP, Kyle W. Roche , Edward Normand , Stephen Lagos
, ROCHE CYRULNIK FREEDMAN LLP, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.
Steven C. Sunshine -- steve.sunshine@skadden.com -- Karen M. Lent,
Evan Kreiner, SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER, & FLOM LLP, Attorneys
for Defendant Postmates Inc.
Derek Ludwin -- dludwin@cov.com -- Stacey K. Grigsby, Andrew A.
Ruffino, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Uher
Technologies, Inc.
David J. Lender -- david.lender@weil.com -- Eric S. Hochstadt,
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Grubhub Inc.
GUIDA DAIRY: Faces Class Suit Over Injury From Contaminated Milk
----------------------------------------------------------------
wfsb.com reports that a class action complaint was filed against
the Guida Dairy Company.
The fallout continues following that incident in New Jersey where
young children at a school there drank milk from Guida's Dairy
which is based here in Connecticut.
Now, the families of some of the children have filed a class action
lawsuit against the company.
The family's say this incident has caused them physical and
emotional distress and the kids are still recovering. They say this
should have never happened.
"Days later we were still experiencing these issues she is
traumatic she is saying no I don't want to drink anything I don't
want to eat anything," said Tiffanee Gould, a Camden County
parent.
Samuel D. Jackson of the Lento Law Group, who is one of the lawyer
for the parents stated, "No parent should ever have to doubt
whether the food their young children are served at school is safe.
The alleged wrongdoing by Guida-Seibert Dairy Company described in
this complaint should be a wake-up call for all milk processors and
food service companies serving schools that their negligence could
injure young children and cause long-term negative health issues."
For parents in the Camden County New Jersey School District, it's
an emotional toll that's a lot harder to get over than spilled
milk.
They say their kids are still recovering after drinking milk
tainted with sanitizer.
The contamination impacted dozens of students at the early
childhood development center nearly one week ago.
"It was just complete chaos and like Dominique said my son had this
big black c on his hand and I'm like what does this mean," said
Gould.
The big C stood for Cooper Medical Center.
That's where Tiffanee and Domonique's children, only 4 and 5 years
old, were taken after they claim Guida Seibert Dairy Company failed
to prevent the milk from being free of foreign substances. The
diluted sanitizer apparently was run through vendor machines prior
to the milk pouring through them.
The two along with their attorneys announced a class action lawsuit
against the New Britain, Connecticut based company.
The suit also includes one other parent.
It alleges distress on both students and their guardians.
For example, one parent lost her job, because of having to care for
her child since being out of school.
In a statement Guida Dairy said it was disposing of half pint sized
1% low fat milk cartons with a sell by date of April 11:
"Once we were made aware of this issue, we took immediate action
and tested impacted product to verify there is no food safety risk
associated with this product. . . . this should've been monitored
better and it wasn't."
The parents are seeking monetary compensation and an apology.
We should note that none of the contaminated milk was sold here in
Connecticut. [GN]
HAMILTON PARK: Fails to Implement COVID-19 Control, McCarthy Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA MCCARTHY, as Executrix of the Estate of DENNIS MCCARTHY,
Deceased, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HAMILTON PARK MULTICARE, LLC D/B/A HAMILTON PARK
NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 510557/2022
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., April 11, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Public Health Law and
for wrongful death.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to provide,
among other things, adequate infection control, supervision,
treatment, dignity, hygiene, and medical attention for its
residents, staff, volunteers, visitors, and other individuals. As a
result of the Defendant's failures and negligence, the Decedent and
other residents were infected with COVID-19, which resulted to
their untimely death.
Hamilton Park Multicare, LLC, doing business as Hamilton Park
Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, is a nursing home in New York,
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael E. Duffy, Esq.
DUFFY & DUFFY, PLLC
1370 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556
Telephone: (516) 394-4200
Facsimile: (516) 394-4229
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Adkinson Sues Over Customers' Info Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ADKINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HORIZON ACTUARIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 8:22-cv-00870-PWG (D. Md., April 11, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence, invasion of privacy,
unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of
fiduciary duty.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to properly
secure and safeguard personal identifiable information (PII)
following a data breach on its computer servers on November 10-11,
2021. The Defendant failed to provide timely, accurate, and
adequate notice to the Plaintiff and Class members, instead opting
to first notify groups that retained Horizon to provide technical
and actuarial consulting services for their pensions, health and
welfare plans, and/or other benefits. Notification to the actual
data breach victims, like the Plaintiff and Class members, was
delayed by approximately four months after Horizon first learned of
the data breach. The Plaintiff and Class members have suffered
injury as a result of Horizon's conduct including: (i) lost or
diminished value of PII; (ii) out-of-pocket expenses associated
with the prevention, detection, and recovery from identity theft,
tax fraud, and/or unauthorized use of their PII; (iii) lost
opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual
consequences of the data breach; (iv) the loss of time needed to
take appropriate measures to avoid unauthorized and fraudulent
charges; (v) charges and fees associated with fraudulent charges on
their accounts; and (vi) the continued and certainly an increased
risk to their PII.
Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC is a consulting firm, with its
principal place of business at 8601 Georgia Avenue, Suite 700,
Silver Spring, Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
MASON LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
lwhite@masonllp.com
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Ruiz Files Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Horizon Actuarial
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Anthony Ruiz, individually and
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-02279-AGT (N.D.
Cal., April 12, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC --
https://www.horizonactuarial.com/ -- is a leading consulting firm
that specializes in providing innovative actuarial solutions to
multiemployer benefit plans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Anderson Berry, Esq.
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Phone: (916) 777-7777
Fax: (916) 924-1829
Email: aberry@justice4you.com
gharoutunian@justice4you.com
- and -
Alex R. Straus, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 South Beverly Drive, Suite PH
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (917) 471-1894
Fax: (310) 496-3176
Email: astraus@milberg.com
HYATT CORPORATION: Vigil Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOE VIGIL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HYATT CORPORATION; GRAND HYATT S.F., LLC,
doing business as GRAND HYATT SAN FRANCISCO; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. CGC-22-597517, was removed from the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
April 8, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-02216-SK to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements,
failure to timely pay wages upon termination, and failure to pay
meal and rest break premiums.
Hyatt Corporation is an American multinational hospitality company
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.
Grand Hyatt S.F., LLC, doing business as Grand Hyatt San Francisco,
is a hospitality company headquartered in San Francisco,
California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian P. Long, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
Telephone: (213) 270-9600
Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
E-mail: bplong@seyfarth.com
- and –
Michael Afar, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
E-mail: mafar@seyfarth.com com
- and –
Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 448-0159
Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
E-mail: pebsworth@seyfarth.com
INTERNATIONAL FOAM: Jolly FLSA Suit Seeks to Recover Back Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
COREY JOLLY, REGINALD WISHUM and DIEGO CONTRERAS, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. INTERNATIONAL FOAM
TECH INC. and ADAM T. MENALDI, Case No. 5:22-cv-00339 (W.D. Tex.,
April 7, 2022) seeks to recover back wages, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.
According to the complaint, Foam Tech and Menaldi violated the FLSA
by employing Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees "for
a workweek longer than forty hours [but refusing to compensate
them] for [their] employment in excess of [forty] hours at a rate
not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which
[they were or are] employed."
The Plaintiffs are all current and former employees of Foam Tech.
Foam Tech and Menaldi provides spray foam roofing services. See
International Foam Tech Inc. https://www.foamtech.com/about-us
(last visited April 5, 2022).[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Curt Hesse, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Centre
440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1110
Houston, TX 77002-1063
Telephone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
curt@mooreandassociates.net
JUUL LABS: Buhl School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BUHL 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-02251 (N.D. Cal., April 11, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Buhl School District is a unified school district with its offices
located at 920 Main Street in Buhl, Idaho.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
KENT COUNTY, MI: Sattler Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of Kent, et
al. The case is styled as Edward Sattler, Beckyann Crowley, William
Viverette, Mamie McDonald, Jeffrey P. Neubauer, Nicholas Barnes,
for themselves and all those similarly situated v. County of Kent,
Peter Macgregor, Kenneth D. Parrish, Pamela Johnson, Sally L.
Brooks, Sherry A. Comben, Jill C. Tollefson, Anne T. Koski, Susan
Vandecar, Michelle Thompson, Shelly Weich, Bret E. Witkowski, Brian
W. Wensauer, Hope Anderson, Betty Simon, Marilyn Cousineau, Carmen
Fazzari, Sherry Godfrey, Lorna Carey, Robert Robinson, Mary
Mitchell, Lisa Hewitt, Heidi Scheppe, Stephenie Kyser, Lisa
Mattila, Eric Schertzing, Judith A. Clark, Melanie Camps, Thomas
Whitener, Mary Balkema, Valerie Thornburg, Kellie Allen, Brenda L.
Kutchinski, John Gallagher, III, Jennifer Goudreau, Rachel Nelson,
Jacqueline Solomon, Nicholas Benson, Andrew R. Kmetz, IV, Barbara
A. Parrett, Lori Cox, Joanne Vukin, Tony Moulatsiotis, Jason
O'Connell, Holly Moon, Mary Lou Phillips, Jeanne M. Pollard, Tonia
M. Hartline, Lori Leudeman, Amanda Price, Kathy Humphreys, Judith
L. Ratering, Julie Roscioli, Treasurer Trisha Nesbitt, Kristi
Nottingham, in their individual and official capacities; County of
Alger; County of Allegan; County of Antrim; County of Baraga;
County of Barry; County of Benzie; County of Berrien; County of
Calhoun; County of Cass; County of Charlevoix; County of Chippewa;
County of Delta; County of Dickinson; County of Eaton; County of
Emmet; County of Gogebic; County of Grand Traverse; County of
Hillsdale; County of Houghton; County of Ingham; County of Ionia;
County of Iron; County of Kalamazoo; County of Kalkaska; County of
Lake; County of Leelanau; County of Mackinac; County of Manistee;
County of Marquette; County of Mason; County of Menominee; County
of Missaukee; County of Montcalm; County of Muskegon; County of
Newaygo; County of Oceana; County of Ontonagon; County of Ottawa;
County of St. Joseph; County of Osceola; County of Schoolcraft;
County of Van Buren; County of Wexford; Government Unit, Case No.
1:22-cv-00316-HYJ-SJB (W.D. Mich., March 31, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
Kent County -- https://www.accesskent.com/ -- is located in the
U.S. state of Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brittany Burke Dzuris, Esq.
Donovan James Visser
Donald R. Visser
Visser and Associates PLLC
2480 44th St., SE, Ste. 150
Kentwood, MI 49512
Phone: (616) 531-9860
Email: bburke@visserlegal.com
donovan@visserlegal.com
donv@visserlegal.com
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Fails to Secure Customers Info, Myers Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW MYERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-21054
(S.D. Fla., April 7, 2022) arises from an ongoing failure by
Lakeview to secure the sensitive personal information of its
customers and employees.
Lakeview obtains personally identifying information related to its
customers -- current and former mortgagees, as well as mortgage
applicants -- in furtherance of services it performs on their
behalf.
The Plaintiff brings this class action against Lakeview for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive Personally
Identifiable Information provided by and belonging to its
customers, including, without limitation, name, address, loan
number, and Social Security number and, for some, information
provided in connection with a loan application, loan modification,
or other items regarding loan servicing ("PII").
On or around October 27, 2021, an intruder accessed the PII stored
on Lakeview's network system, from which it accessed, exfiltrated
and/or compromised information (the "Data Breach"). In early
December 2021, Lakeview identified this security incident
involving
unauthorized access to its file servers, having determined that an
unauthorized person obtained access to files on its file storage
servers from October 27, 2021 to December 7, 2021, says the suit.
The Defendant determined that the unauthorized actor accessed and
exfiltrated the PII of more than 2,537,261 current and former
Lakeview customers ("Class Members"), including that of Plaintiff.
Thereafter, on or around March 18, 2022, the Defendant began
notifying Plaintiff and Class Members of the Data Breach. On March
21, 2022, Defendant notified the Texas Office of the Attorney
General of the data breach and reported that 255,762 Texans were
affected.
By collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and
Class Members' PII, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to
these individuals.
As the Defendant acknowledges, the unencrypted PII accessed and
exfiltrated includes highly sensitive information, such as names,
addresses, phone numbers, loan numbers, and Social Security
numbers.
The exposed PII of Defendant's current and former customers can be
sold on the dark web. Plaintiff is informed and believe that his
information has already been placed onto the dark web, which can
now be accessed and/or offered for sale to criminals. Plaintiff and
Lakeview customers face a lifetime risk of identity theft,
heightened by the loss of their Social Security numbers, added the
suit.
On April 4, 2022, Plaintiff Myers received a letter dated March 18,
2022 from Defendant concerning the Data Breach. The letter
acknowledged that unauthorized actors had gained access to Lakeview
Loan Servicing's network containing names, addresses, loan
numbers,
Social Security number, and for some, information provided in
connection with a loan application, loan modification, or other
items regarding loan servicing. The letter informed Plaintiff Myers
that the incident involved some of his information and advised of
steps that Plaintiff Myers should consider taking to protect
himself in response to the Data Breach.
Lakeview is a private mortgage loan servicer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. George, Esq.
Brittany L. Brown, Esq.
GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite #302
Lake Worth, FL 33467
Telephone: (561) 232-6002
Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
E-mail: DGeorge@4-Justice.com
BBrown@4-Justice.com
E-Service: eService@4-Justice.com
- and -
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
102 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520
Telephone: (917) 983-9321
Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
E-mail: LFeldman@4-Justice.com
E-Service: eService@4-Justice.com
- and -
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0800
Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
- and -
John Emerson, Esq.
EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300
Houston, TX 77042
Telephone: (800) 551-8649
Facsimile: (501) 286-4659
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Kimbrough Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNIE KIMBROUGH, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-21044 (S.D. Fla., April 7, 2022) alleges that Lakeview
failed to secure and safeguard the Plaintifff's and approximately
2,537,261 other individuals' personally identifiable information
("PII"), including names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and
loan numbers.
Lakeview is "the fourth largest mortgage loan servicer in the
country." As a loan servicer, the company handles the
administration of loans that are issued by other entities.
On or about October 27, 2021, unauthorized individuals gained
access to Lakeview's network systems and had access to files from
the system that contained the PII of the Plaintiff and Class
members (the "Data Breach"). The unauthorized individuals had
access to Lakeview's network system and the files for over a month,
until December 7, 2021, says the suit.
Lakeview owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class members to implement
and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure,
protect, and safeguard their PII against unauthorized access and
disclosure. Lakeview breached that duty by, among other things,
failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures
and practices to protect their PII from unauthorized access and
disclosure, added the suit.
As a result of Lakeview's inadequate security and breach of its
duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's
and Class members' PII was accessed and disclosed. This action
seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. Plaintiff
brings this action on behalf of himself and all United States
residents whose PII was exposed as a result of the Data Breach,
which Lakeview learned of in early December 2021, and first
publicly acknowledged on or about March 18, 2022, over three months
after the breach was discovered.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other Class members,
asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
fiduciary duty, and breach of implied contract, and seeks
declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory
damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief
authorized by law.
Lakeview is a mortgage loan servicer that works with "more than 1.4
million customers every year." The company provides loan
refinancing services, as well as other administrative services to
its customers throughout the life of the mortgage loan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc A. Wites, Esq.
WITES LAW FIRM
4400 N. Federal Highway
Lighthouse Point FL 33064
Telephone: (954) 570-8989
E-mail: mwites@witeslaw.com
- and -
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
Riley W. Prince, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 621-2000
Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
rprince@barnowlaw.com
LDV GREENWICH: Hanyzkiewicz Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARTA HANYZKIEWICZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LDV GREENWICH, LLC, D/B/A AMERICAN CUT
TRIBECA, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02035 (E.D.N.Y., April 8,
2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights
Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.americancutsteakhouse.com, allegedly 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) interactive elements on the website are not
keyboard focusable; (c) fail to add a label element or title
attribute for each field; (d) many pages on the website also
contain the same title elements; and (e) contain a host of broken
links.
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.
LDV Greenwich, LLC, doing business as American Cut Tribeca, is a
steakhouse restaurant based in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
LOUISIANA: Plaisance, et al., Seek to Certify Three Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROOKE PLAISANCE,
FREDERICK BASS, AMANDA COLEMAN, STEPHEN STRICK, AND WILIAM
GRIESHABER, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
v. STATE OF LOUISIANA; LOUISIANA WORKFORCE COMMISSION; AVA M.
DEJOIE, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana
Workforce Commission; AND JOHN BEL EDWARDS, in his official
capacity as chief executive officer of the State of Louisiana, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00121-JWD-EWD (M.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order:
1. granting their motion for class certification pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; and
2. appointing Proposed Class Counsel to represent the
certified classes.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify three separate but overlapping
classes consisting of:
a. An Untimely Notice Class, represented by Brooke Plaisance,
Amanda Coleman and Steven Strick, and comprised of all
individuals who, since March 13, 2020, have filed or will
file a claim for unemployment insurance benefits through
the Louisiana Workforce Commission and did not or will not
receive a determination of eligibility for benefits within
30 days.
b. An Inadequate Notice Class, represented by Amanda Coleman
and Steven Strick, and comprised of all individuals who,
since March 13, 2020, have filed or will file a claim for
unemployment insurance benefits through the Louisiana
Workforce Commission and who received or will receive a
written notice that fails to identify the specific reason
for denial or reduction of benefits and/or the right to
appeal the determination to the Louisiana Workforce
Commission.
c. An Unlawful Termination Class, represented by Amanda
Coleman and Steven Strick, and comprised of all
individuals whose unemployment insurance benefits through
the Louisiana Workforce Commission were or will be
terminated on or after March 13, 2020, without receiving
written notice of termination prior to the termination of
benefits, and/or who did not or will not receive an
administrative appeal within 45 days of request.
The Plaintiffs are Louisiana residents who, since March 13, 2020,
applied for UC benefits through LWC and have been, are being, or
will be denied access to UC benefits without a timely and/or
adequate determination of benefits eligibility.
The LWC, as supervised by Defendant, administers all UC programs in
Louisiana. In order to obtain UC benefits, a claimant files an
initial claim online or calls the LWC to have a worker enter the
information online for the claimant.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify classes dated March 25,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JGRjVf
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Saima A. Akhtar, Esq.
NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
50 Broadway, Suite 1500
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 633-6967
Facsimile: (212) 633-6371
E-mail: akhtar@nclej.org
- and -
Ellyn J. Clevenger, Esq.
Wendy Manard, Esq.
MANARD LAW
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2610
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (504) 585-7777
Facsimile: (504) 556-2977
E-mail: wendy@wmanard.com
ellyn@wmanard.com
- and -
Chad B. Walker, Esq.
Rebecca Loegering, Esq.
Steven Laxton, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
2121 N. Pearl Street, Suite 900
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 453-6500
Facsimile: (214) 453-6400
E-mail: cbwalker@winston.com
rloegering@winston.com
slaxton@winston.com
MEJURI INC: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mejuri (US), Inc. The
case is styled as Yelitza Picon, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Mejuri (US), Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03031 (S.D.N.Y., April 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mejuri -- https://mejuri.com/ -- is the new luxury of online
jewelry store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Click Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES CLICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, Defendant, Case
No.1:22-cv-01422-SDG (N.D., Ga., April 12, 2022) is an action
against the Defendant for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours,
minimum wages, prejudgment interest, liquidated damages and
penalties.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as Mercedes-Benz worker.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC was founded in 2000. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of new and used
passenger automobiles, trucks, trailers, and other motor vehicles.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Rd., Ste. 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com
- and -
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
Email: matt@parmet.law
MERIDIAN PRIME INC: Court Narrows Claims in Timberg Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SAMUEL TIMBERG, on his own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROSS TOOMBS and MERIDIAN
PRIME, INC., Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-6060 (MKB) (E.D.N.Y.),
Judge Margo K. Brodie of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint.
I. Background
Plaintiff Timberg, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, commenced the action on Dec. 12, 2020, against Defendants
Ross Toombs and Meridian Prime, Inc., alleging that the Defendants
knowingly and willfully committed widespread violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. (the "FLSA"),
and the New York Labor Law, Sections 190 et seq. and 650 et. seq.,
and 12 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations ("NYCRR") Section
142-1.1 et seq. (collectively the "NYLL").
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants (1) failed to pay him
overtime and spread of hours pay, (2) failed to provide wage
notices and wage statements, and (3) breached his employment
contract. The Plaintiff also seeks designation of this litigation
as a collective action pursuant to FLSA section 216 for his FLSA
and NYLL claims.
Meridian Prime is a wine import business established on September
19, 2011, in Brooklyn, New York. Toombs resides in the State of
Colorado and is an owner, operator and CEO of Meridian Prime. The
Plaintiff was Meridian Prime's managing director, and his duties
included sales and operational tasks. The Defendants employed the
Plaintiff from Nov. 4, 2013 to March 6, 2020. During the
Plaintiff's employment, the Defendants made over $500,000 in annual
gross sales and employed two or more individuals.
As part of his duties, the Plaintiff worked Monday through Friday
from 10 AM to 8 PM and multiple hours on weekends, sometimes in
excess of 65 hours per week. While working for the Defendants,
since Oct. 30, 2018 and then multiple times from Jan. 15, 2019 to
Oct. 31, 2019, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff wages
totaling $53,600. In addition, the Defendants failed to reimburse
him for expenses associated with his employment in the amount of
$41,091 and repay him for money borrowed for their benefit in the
amount of $11,560.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants "knowingly and willfully
operated their business with a policy of not paying him and other
similarly situated employees" overtime or spread of hours pay and
"did not provide required wage notices at the time of hiring, in
contravention to federal and state labor laws."
The Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to
state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff opposes the motion.
II. Discussion
A. Plaintiff is not an exempt employee
The Defendants argue that all of the Plaintiff's FLSA and NYLL
claims must be dismissed because he is an exempt employee. The
Plaintiff argues that he was not an exempt employee because his
primary duty was sales, not the management of the business, and he
did not direct the work of other employees or have the authority to
hire or fire other employees.
Based on the allegations in the Amended Complaint, Judge Brodie
finds that the business owner exemption does not apply to yhr
Plaintiff. While the Plaintiff owns equity interest in Meridian
Prime, his interest is less than 20%, his job responsibilities do
not encompass managerial duties, and he had no authority over other
employees. And, based on the allegations in the Amended Complaint,
the Plaintiff is not an administrative employee. The Plaintiff
alleges that he operated as a salesperson, and his primary duties
included the sale of wine to wholesalers and not the exercise of
independent judgment over matters of significance to the company.
Accordingly, Judge Brodie denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's FLSA and NYLL claims because, based on the
allegations in the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff is not an
executive or administrative exempt employee.
B. Collective action claims
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's FLSA collective action
claims should be dismissed as implausible on their face because
Plaintiff has not presented "substantial allegations" that there
are similarly situated employees who were also victims of Meridian
Prime's employment policies. The Plaintiff argues that he has
sufficiently alleged a collective action because other employees at
Meridian Prime were also denied wages or overtime pay and "courts
have issued a court-authorized collective action notice when the
Plaintiff and his coworkers did not perform primarily managerial
duties despite their title and they were subjected to a companywide
policy depriving them of overtime pay."
Judge Brodie finds that the Plaintiff has not moved for
certification of a collective action under the FLSA or
certification of a class under the NYLL, thus, the Defendants'
assertions about the Plaintiff's collective class allegations are
more appropriate for the certification stage. Moreover, the
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants maintain a policy of not paying
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees either
overtime or spread of hours pay, plausibly alleging a group of
similarly situated individuals are subject to the same policy.
Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
collective action claims is denied.
C. NYLL wage notice claim
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's NYLL claim for failing to
provide a wage notice at the time Defendants hired him should be
dismissed as untimely because the Plaintiff alleges that they hired
him in November of 2013, and therefore his claim that they failed
to provide a wage notice expired in November of 2019, and the
Plaintiff did not commence this action until December of 2020. The
Plaintiff contends that his wage notice claims are timely because,
prior to February of 2015, the NYLL required employers to provide
annual wage notices, as well as a notice any time the wage rate
changed, and since February of 2015, the statute has required
employers to give notice at the time of hire and any time the wage
rate changed, but the Plaintiff was not given a wage notice
annually before February of 2015.
Judge Brodie finds that the Plaintiff commenced this action on Dec.
12, 2020. Thus, he may recover under the NYLL for any claims that
accrued starting on Dec. 12, 2014, and the Defendants are liable
for the violations of NYLL that occurred on or after that date. In
the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff states that the Defendants
hired him in November of 2013, and does not allege changes to his
wage rate after he was hired. Therefore, the Plaintiff's claim as
alleged expired in November of 2019. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's
NYLL wage notice claim is dimissed.
D. Toombs is an employer under the FLSA and NYLL
The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims against
Toombs on the basis that Toombs is not an employer within the
meaning of either the FLSA or NYLL. The Plaintiff asserts that
Toombs is an employer under the FLSA and NYLL because he is "chief
executive officer of Meridian Prime," and further contends that
"Toombs alone exercised full control over Meridian."
Judge Brodie holds that the Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts to
support the inference that Toombs is an employer. The Defendants
concede that Toombs is the owner and operator of Meridian Prime.
Although ownership alone is insufficient to render an individual an
employer, "courts have found that ownership in a closely held
corporation strongly suggests an employer-employee relationship
under the FLSA."
In addition, the Plaintiff alleges that Toombs "determined the rate
and method of the payment of their wages, and controlled the work
schedules, duties, protocols, applications, assignments and
conditions of employment of the Plaintiff," and that the Defendants
were the "joint 'employers' of the Plaintiff under NYLL and the
FLSA," the Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that Toombs was an
employer within the meaning of the FLSA and NYLL.
Accordingly, Judge Brodie denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the FLSA and NYLL claims against Toombs.
E. Plaintiff fails to state a breach of contract claim
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim for
breach of contract under New York law because he "failed to plead
material terms of the purported agreement by which the Defendants
allegedly agreed to repay or reimburse him for his expenses." In
response, the Plaintiff argues that he sufficiently pleads his
breach of contract claims, by alleging that the "Defendants failed
to reimburse him for expenses associated with his employment in the
amount of $41,091" and that he loaned the Defendants $11,560 and
the Defendants failed to repay the loan.
The Plaintiff fails to allege a claim for breach of contract --
even considering the agreement -- because he fails to identify any
particular provision of the agreement breached by the Defendants,
Judge Brodie finds. The allegations fail to identify a specific
promise by Meridian Prime to provide "on demand" repayment for
expenses incurred associated with his employment and to improve the
business; Plaintiff therefore fails to plead a breach of contract
claim. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract is
dismissed.
F. Leave to amend
Judge Brodie grants the Plaintiff 30 days from the date of the
Memorandum and Order to file a second amended complaint. The
Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint as to
his dismissed claims -- wage notice and breach of contract claims.
If the Plaintiff decides to file a second amended complaint,
Plaintiff must do so within 30 days of the date of the Memorandum
and Order. A second amended complaint will completely replace the
Amended Complaint and must stand on its own without reference to
the Amended Complaint and must contain all of the claims the
Plaintiff seeks to pursue. The second amended complaint must be
captioned "Second Amended Complaint" and bear the same docket
number as this Memorandum and Order. If the Plaintiff elects not to
file a second amended complaint or fails to file a second amended
complaint within 30 days of the Memorandum and Order, the Court
will dismiss the NYLL wage notice and breach of contract claims
against Defendants with prejudice, and all of the Plaintiff's other
claims will proceed.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated, Judge Brodie granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' motion. She granted the Defendants' motion and
dismissed the Plaintiff's wage notice and breach of contract
claims. She denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's FLSA unpaid overtime and collective action claims and
NYLL unpaid overtime, unpaid spread of hours pay, and wage
statements claims. In addition, Judge Brodie granted the Plaintiffs
leave to amend the Amended Complaint within 30 days of the date the
Memorandum and Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8mb4jm from Leagle.com.
MICHPAT & FAM: Conditional Certification in Valdez Suit Adopted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSICA VALDEZ, Plaintiff v. MICHPAT & FAM, LLC, doing
business as Dairy Queen Grill & Chill Restaurant, and PATRICIA
NAPPO, also known as Patricia Demint, Defendants, Case No.
20-CV-2570 (AMD) (SIL) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York adopted
Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke's report and recommendation in its
entirety.
The Jan. 6, 2022 report and recommendation ("R&R") recommends that
the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification be
granted in part and denied in part.
I. Background
The Plaintiff brings a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") for unpaid overtime on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, as well as claims under the New York Labor Law
("NYLL") and New York Compensation Codes Rules & Regulations
("NYCRR") for unpaid overtime, spread-of-hours violations, untimely
payments, and inaccurate wage statements and notices on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated.
Defendant MichPat operates the Dairy Queen franchise in Medford,
New York. Defendant Patricia Demint is MichPat's managing member
and general manager, and oversees "the daily operation of this
Dairy Queen franchise and controls the terms and conditions of
employment for all of Dairy Queen's employees, in that she had the
power to hire and fire all employees, supervise and control
employee work schedules, determine the rate and method of wages
paid to all employees, and was and is responsible for maintaining
employment records."
In December of 2017, Demint hired the Plaintiff to work at
MichPat's Dairy Queen. The Plaintiff "performed manual work as a
grill-line worker for hourly pay until approximately mid-May 2018,"
when she was promoted to manager. Nevertheless, she "continued to
perform her duties as a manual grill-line worker, and also ran the
ice cream section, prepared the work schedules, ordered supplies,
cleaned the restaurant and equipment, ensured the food was cooked
at the right temperature and that the staff wore proper equipment,
and hired and fired staff"; "virtually 100% of her work was spent
completing manually laborious tasks, such as, e.g., cooking,
cleaning, serving food, checking food temperatures, and handling
store equipment orders as they arrived." The Plaintiff worked five
to six days each week, between 32 and 45 hours per week, and was
paid on a bi-weekly basis as if she were an hourly employee. On
Oct. 25, 2019, Demint fired the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff alleges that MichPat and Demint avoided paying her
for overtime by logging hours that she worked in one week as if
they occurred in a different week, so that she never had more than
40 hours in any given week. Demint also instructed the plaintiff
and other managers to delete and move their employees' hours, which
she coordinated over a text messaging application; Demint kept her
scheme secret by using her employees' punch-codes in the time
logging system when she deleted or moved their hours. The scheme
affected at least 20 other employees, whom the Plaintiff lists by
name.
The Defendants also asked the Plaintiff to work off-the-clock, and
to work shifts of more than 10 hours, but did not provide
spread-of-hours pay. Nor did the Defendants pay the Plaintiff
directly; they deposited her paychecks into an account held by
Demint, who "from time-to-time and at her whim, would deposit some
money" into the Plaintiff's account. The Defendants did not provide
the plaintiff with an accurate wage statement, or with an accurate
wage notice when she was hired. They also paid her less than
minimum wage for several months in 2019.
The Plaintiff claims that the defendants violated the overtime
provisions of the FLSA, NYLL and NYCRR, the minimum wage provisions
of the FLSA, NYLL and NYCRR, the spread-of-hours requirements under
the NYLL and NYCRR, the weekly-pay requirements for manual workers
under the NYLL, and the accurate wage statements and wage notices
provisions of the NYLL. The plaintiff brought the action on behalf
of herself, individually, as well as on behalf of "all others
similarly-situated," and seeks equitable relief and monetary
damages.
The Plaintiff moved on March 26, 2021 for conditional certification
of an FLSA collective action with respect to the FLSA claim, as
well as certification of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)
class action with respect to the NYLL and NYCRR claims.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of an FLSA collective action that
includes herself and "current and former employees who during the
applicable FLSA limitations period performed any work for the
Defendants, who were paid on an hourly basis as manual workers, and
who consent to file a claim" (the "FLSA Plaintiffs").
They also seeks certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class action, on
behalf of herself and "current and former employees who during the
applicable NYLL limitations period performed any work for the
Defendants in New York, and who were paid on an hourly basis as
manual workers" (the "Rule 23 Plaintiffs").
In a comprehensive decision on Jan. 6, 2022, Magistrate Judge
Steven I. Locke recommended that the Plaintiff's motion be granted
in part and denied in part. Specifically, Judge Locke issued a R&R,
with the following recommendations:
a. The matter should be conditionally certified as a FLSA
collective action for a class defined as all current and former
employees, who from April 23, 2018 to April 23, 2021, performed any
work for Defendants and who were paid on an hourly basis as crew
members, assistant managers, or managers, and who consent to file a
claim to recover damages for unpaid overtime compensation and
liquidated damages.
b. The matter should be certified as a NYLL Rule 23 class
action for a class defined as all current and former employees, who
from the opening of Defendants' Dairy Queen restaurant on December
1, 2017 until March 1, 2020, performed any work for Defendants in
New York as crew members, assistant managers, or managers, and who
were paid on an hourly, bi-weekly basis.
c. The Named Plaintiff should revise her proposed notice
consistent with Judge Donnelly's adoption or modification of the
R&R.
d. The Named Plaintiff should be permitted to send the notice
to potential FLSA collective and NYLL Rule 23 class members via
first-class mail, email, and text message, as well as to post it at
Defendants' Dairy Queen location and send a reminder notice.
e. The Defendants should be directed to provide the Named
Plaintiff with a computer-readable data file containing the names,
addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, work locations, and
dates of employment of all crew members, assistant managers, and
managers employed by the Defendants as hourly, non-exempt,
overtime-eligible employees at any point between Dec. 1, 2017 and
March 1, 2020.
The Defendants filed their objections to Judge Locke's conclusions
on Jan. 20, 2022 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72.
II. Discussion
A. FLSA Collective Action
The Defendants object to Judge Locke's determination that
conditional certification of a FLSA collective action is
appropriate. They do not explain why Judge Locke's decision was
"clearly erroneous" or "contrary to law," which is their burden
under Rule 72(a). Instead, they repeat the arguments that they made
to Judge Locke in opposing the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification.
Judge Donnelly has reviewed the sections of Judge Locke's
well-reasoned decision and finds no error. She finds that the
complaint's allegations are bolstered not only by the Plaintiff's
declaration, but by her testimony, and that of Michelle Robey,
which are factors that also demonstrate that the Plaintiff has met
the low standard of proof needed for conditional certification.
Indeed, "numerous courts have granted conditional certification
based on the declaration and observations of only one individual."
Next, Judge Donnelly finds that the parties have not certified that
discovery is complete on the issue of conditional certification.
The Defendants do not explain why the modest plus standard should
apply. In any event, the Plaintiff meets her burden even under the
modest plus standard because the Plaintiff's declaration, her
testimony and Robey's testimony support her claim that her employer
engaged in a practice of changing employees' hours, as described.
Lastly, Judge Donnelly is not persuaded by the Defendants' argument
that the Plaintiff must show that other employees wish to opt-in to
her collective action. It is not the law in this circuit, and
courts in other circuits have hesitated to impose this
requirement.
B. Class Action
The Defendants object to Judge Locke's determination that the
Plaintiff satisfied the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements for class
certification.
Judge Donnelly has reviewed Judge Locke's thorough discussion of
class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), and again, finds no
error. She finds that (i) the fact that the Plaintiff was a manager
does not mean that she is an inadequate class representative; (ii)
predominance is satisfied because a determination that all of the
Defendants' employees were manual workers, including those who,
like the Plaintiff, were also managers, will determine whether the
named Plaintiff's claims succeed on a class-wide basis; (iii) the
potential claims under NYLL Section 191 and Section 195 are
relatively small in the case; and (iv) the other Rule 23(b)(3)
factors also weigh in favor of finding superiority.
C. Notice
The Defendants object to the Plaintiff's proposed notice to members
of the FLSA collective action and members of the Rule 23(b)(3)
class action, as well as Judge Locke's recommendation that the
Defendants disclose their employees' contact information.
Judge Donnelly has reviewed Judge Locke's conclusions about notice
and finds no error. She finds that (i) Judge Locke's recommendation
not to include defense counsel's contact information is not clearly
erroneous because district courts are split; (ii) the Defendants do
not reconcile older case law with more recent decisions that
clearly encourage more modern forms of communication; (iii) Judge
Locke's decision that the Plaintiff could send a reminder notice
was correct; and (iv) Judge Locke was right to require that the
defendants disclose "a computer-readable data file containing the
names, last known mailing addresses, all known home and mobile
telephone numbers, all known e-mail addresses, work locations, and
dates of employment of all crew members, assistant managers, and
managers who worked for Defendants between Dec. 1, 2017 and March
1, 2020."
D. Statute of Limitations
Aside from stating that Judge Locke "misapprehended the facts" with
respect to the applicable statute of limitations, the Defendants do
not object to Judge Locke's decision about the applicable statute
of limitations for FLSA and NYLL claims. There is no clear error in
Judge Locke's thorough decision.
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, Judge Donnelly adopted Judge Locke's R&R in its
entirety.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Memorandum Decision
& Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycybef43 from
Leagle.com.
MIDLAND CREDIT: Pimienta Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Ricardo Pimienta,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02114-SB-RAO
(C.D. Cal., March 30, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN STIEGLITZ
11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: Dismissal of Salim Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Mobile Telesystems Public Joint Stock Company (MTS PJSC) disclosed
in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended September 31,
2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 4,
2022, that the class action complaint on behalf of Shayan Salim and
all other persons similarly situated filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York in March 2019,
against MTS PJSC and certain of its managers has been dismissed.
On 1 March 2021, US District Judge of said court granted MTS's
motion to dismiss with prejudice and dismissed the complaint in
full. The plaintiff has filed an appeal for dismissal resolution of
Eastern District Court of New York. As of December 31, 2021 the
appeal is pending.
Mobile Telesystems Public Joint Stock Company is a Moscow-based
radio telephone communications company.
MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Cole, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Catherine Cole, Barbara
Koostra, Mary-Ann Sontag Bowman, and Rhondie Voorhees, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Montana
University System, University of Montana-Missoula, and John Doe
Defendants 1-50, Case No. 9:21-cv-00088-BMM (D. Mont.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying case as a
class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
The Plaintiffs request this matter be certified as a hybrid class
action under Rule 23(b)(2) for injunctive and declaratory relief,
and Rule 23(b)(3) for class members' monetary damages.
The Montana University System was created on July 1, 1994, when the
Montana Board of Regents of Higher Education restructured the
state's public colleges and universities, with the goal of
streamlining the state's higher education in the wake of decreased
state funding.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 25,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JH5wBm
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sherine D. Blackford, Esq.
BLACKFORD CARLS P.C.
602 W. Lamme Street
Bozeman, MT 59715
Telephone: (406) 577-2145
Facsimile: (406) 219-0256
E-mail: carls@blackfordcarls.com
sherine@blackfordcarls.com
NEW MILLENNIUM: Farrell Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tara Farrell, Henly Velarde, and Douglas Wells,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New
Millennium Concepts, LTD, Case No. 2:21-cv-01691, was removed from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on March
30, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00728-M to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Torts/Pers Prop: Other Fraud.
New Millennium Concepts, Ltd. (NMCL) --
https://www.berkeywater.com/ -- is the manufacturer of the Berkey
water filter- a line of gravity-fed water filtration and
purification products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
Katherine A. Bruce, Esq.
Kelsey J. Elling, Esq.
Yana A. Hart, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, California 90265
Phone: (213) 788-4050
Fax: (213) 788-4070
Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com
kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com
yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Benjamin B Breckler, Esq.
Benjamin G Goodman, Esq.
Ronald W Breaux, Esq.
Michelle C Jacobs, Esq.
HAYNES AND BOONE LLP
2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
Phone: (214) 651-5263
Email: ben.breckler@haynesboone.com
benjamin.goodman@haynesboone.com
ron.breaux@haynesboone.com
michelle.jacobs@haynesboone.com
- and -
Mark David Erickson, Esq.
HAYNES AND BOONE LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 700
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (949) 202-3052
Fax: (949) 202-3152
Email: mark.erickson@haynesboone.com
- and -
Richard Thaddeus Behrens, Esq.
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
2828 N Harwood Street, Suite 1800
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 271-5812
Fax: (214) 853-4132
Email: thad.behrens@shearman.com
NEW YORK: Jacobson Class Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM A. JACOBSON, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. MARY T.
BASSETT, in her official capacity as Acting Commissioner of the New
York Department of Health, Case No. 3:22-cv-00033-MAD-ML
(N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mae A. D'Agostino entered an order:
1. granting the Defendant's cross motion to dismiss;
2. denying as moot the Plaintiff's motions to certify a class
and for a preliminary injunction; and
3. dismissing without prejudice all claims against the
Defendant.
The New York State Department of Health is the department of the
New York state government responsible for public health. It is
headed by Health Commissioner Mary T. Bassett, who was appointed by
Governor Hochul and confirmed by the Senate on December 1, 2021.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3M8Qu9n at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James P. Trainor, Esq.
TRAINOR LAW PLLC
2452 US Route 9 -- Suite 203
Malta, NY 12020
- and -
Adam K. Mortara, Esq.
LAWFAIR LLC
125 S. Wacker Dr. - Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60606
- and -
Gene Hamilton, Esq.
AMERICA FIRST LEGAL
FOUNDATION
300 Independence Avenue SE
Washington, District of Columbia 20003
- and -
J. Michael Connolly, Esq.
James F. Hasson, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Harris, Esq.
CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC
1600 Wilson Blvd. - Suite 700
Arlington, VA 22209
- and -
Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
MITCHELL LAW PLLC
111 Congress Avenue - Suite 400
Austin, TX 78701
The Defendant is represented by:
Adrienne J. Kerwin, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
NEWPORT GROUP: Russ Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Elder Phillip Russ, IV, Rev. Marcius King, by and through
Lynette Glenn, Power of Attorney, and Rev. Matthew Ewing,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
NEWPORT GROUP, INC., SYMETRA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REV. DR. JEROME
V. HARRIS, BISHOP SAMUEL L. GREEN, SR., AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL
CHURCH a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) corporation ("AMEC"), AND JOHN
DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:22-cv-00375-BJD-LLL (M.D. Fla., March 31,
2022), is brought arising out of the breaches of fiduciary duties
and negligent conduct of the Defendants in managing the AMEC
Pension Fund ("Fund") and retirement assets of the Class.
The Defendants directly owed duties to the Plaintiffs, including
fiduciary duties, to conduct due diligence, monitor investments,
and oversee and audit the Fund and its trustee(s) or managers, in
order to assure that the Fund was protected and that the Plaintiffs
had access to their retirement funds when it came time for
appropriate payments or withdrawals. The Defendants had the power
to monitor, review, dismiss, appoint, and control the operations of
various trustee(s) whose responsibility it was to act in the best
interests of the Plaintiffs. The Defendants oversaw and controlled
the investments in the Fund and did not adequately monitor or
oversee the Fund. The Defendants in this action are each
responsible for the Plaintiffs' massive losses. The loss to the
Plaintiffs' assets is a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants' failure to fulfill their duties to the Plaintiffs, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are ministers, bishops, officers, elders, and other
employees of AMEC or AMEC-related educational institutions or
programs who have lost retirement funds that were invested in the
Fund.
Newport Group, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its headquarters
in Walnut Creek, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW
20900 NE 30th Avenue, #417
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (305) 610-5223
Email: Rachel@dapeer.com
NFINITY ATHLETICS: Fusion Elite Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Fusion Elite All Stars, Spirit Factor LLC doing
business as: Fuel Athletics; Stars and Stripes Gymnastics Academy
Inc. doing business as: Stars and Stripes Kids Activity Center;
Kathryn Anne Radek; Lauren Hayes; Janine Cherasaro individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioners v. Nfinity
Athletics LLC, Respondent, Case No. 1:22-cv-01071 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on
April 12, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02226-SHL-tmp to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
Nfinity -- https://www.nfinity.com/ -- has grown into a leading
athletic footwear and apparel brand that delivers the best quality
and value in team athletic gear and footwear.[BN]
The Petitioners are represented by:
Eric Cramer, Esq.
Mark Suter, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.-P.A.
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 875-3000
Fax: (215) 875-4604
Email: ecramer@bm.net
msuter@bm.net
- and -
Gregory Asciolla, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP-NY
140 Broadway, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 907-0700
Fax: (212) 818-0477
Email: gasciolla@labaton.com
- and -
Peter Andrew Lampros, Esq.
HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
400 Galleria Pkwy, Suite 1150
Atlanta, GA 30339
Phone: (404) 876-8100
Fax: (404) 876-3477
Email: alampros@hallandlampros.com
The Respondent is represented by:
John Anthony Christy, Esq.
Jonathan Akins, Esq.
SCHREEDER WHEELER & FLINT, LLP
1100 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4516
Phone: (404) 681-3450
Email: jchristy@swfllp.com
jakins@swfllp.com
NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA: Padilla Sues Over Unpaid Lawful Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julian Mendoza Padilla, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. NISSHO OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
37-2022-00012006-CU-OE-CTL Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., March
30, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Labor Code seeking unpaid
lawful wages, unpaid rest and meal period compensation,
reimbursement of required expenses, penalties and other equitable
relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
The Defendant enforced shift schedules, employment policies and
practices, and workload requirements wherein the Plaintiff and all
other Non-Exempt Employees: were not paid proper wages they earned
for all hours they worked, including proper overtime compensation;
were not permitted to take their full statutorily authorized rest
and meal periods. The Defendant failed to pay such employees one
hour of pay at the employees' regular rate of compensation for each
workday that the meal period and/or rest period was not properly
provided.
The Defendant has failed to reimburse the Plaintiff and Non-Exempt
Employees for business expenses incurred in the performance of
their job. The Defendant has also failed to timely pay all wages
owed to Non-Exempt Employees during their employment and/or when
their employment with the Defendant terminated. The Defendant also
failed to maintain accurate itemized records reflecting total hours
worked and have failed to provide Non-Exempt Employees with
accurate, itemized wage statements reflecting total hours worked
and appropriate rates of pay for those hours worked, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Nissho as an irrigation technician
laborer and occupied said non-exempt, hourly position until the
last day of his employment on July 16, 2021.
Nissho is a California corporation which is engaged in providing
landscape services throughout California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
Lance Dacre, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS, APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6676
NNW IMPORT: Faces Marroquin Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERIK TEO MARROQUIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NNW IMPORT, INC.; JIACHENG WU; and DOES 1 to
25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV11884 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., April 7, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the
California's Business and Professions Code including failure to
compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to pay wages when employment ends, failure to
pay wages owed every pay period, failure to maintain accurate
records, failure to give rest breaks, failure to give meal breaks,
failure to reimburse for business expenses, and unfair business
practices.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a driver until
November 2021.
NNW Import, Inc. is an importer in Los Angeles, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sevag Nigoghosian, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SEVAG NIGOGHOSIAN
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 956-1111
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
OATLY GROUP: Faces Bentley Shareholder Suit in NY Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Oatly Group AB disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 6, 2022, that it is facing a
securities class action complaint filed under the caption "Bentley
v. Oatly Group AB et al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-06485-AKH, filed in
July 30, 2021 in the Southern District of New York.
This action has been consolidated under the caption "In re Oatly
Group AB Securities Litigation," Consolidated Civil Action No.
1:21-cv-06360-AKH.
Oatly Group AB is into food and kindred products and is based in
Malmo, Sweden.
OATLY GROUP: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in NY Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oatly Group AB disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 6, 2022, that it is facing a class
action captioned "In re Oatly Group AB Securities Litigation,"
Consolidated Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-06360-AKH, pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York,
This was brought against the company and certain of its officers
and directors (including a former director), and alleges violations
of the Exchange Act, SEC Rule 10b-5, and the Securities Act of
1933.
Oatly Group AB is into food and kindred products and is based in
Malmo, Sweden.
OATLY GROUP: Faces Jochims Shareholder Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Oatly Group AB disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 6, 2022, that it is facing a
securities class action complaint filed under the caption "Jochims
v. Oatly Group AB et al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-06360-AKH filed in July
26, 2021 in the Southern District of New York.
This action has been consolidated under the caption "In re Oatly
Group AB Securities Litigation," Consolidated Civil Action No.
1:21-cv-06360-AKH.
Oatly Group AB is into food and kindred products and is based in
Malmo, Sweden.
OATLY GROUP: Faces Kostendt Class Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------
Oatly Group AB disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 6, 2022, that it is facing a
securities class action complaint filed under the caption "Kostendt
v. Oatly Group AB et al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-07904-AKH, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors,
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule
10b-5.
This action has been consolidated under the caption "In re Oatly
Group AB Securities Litigation," Consolidated Civil Action No.
1:21-cv-06360-AKH.
Oatly Group AB is into food and kindred products and is based in
Malmo, Sweden.
ODE A LA ROSE: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ode A La Rose New
York LLC. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Ode A La Rose New York
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03032 (S.D.N.Y., April 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ode a la Rose -- https://www.odealarose.com/ -- is one-of-a-kind
florist that provides a unique flower delivery service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
OREGON: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Jail COVID-19 Response
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge in Portland has
certified a class-action lawsuit in Oregon over the response by
state leaders to the COVID-19 pandemic inside prisons.
A group of prisoners who contracted COVID-19 first sued the state
in April 2020, alleging culpability by Gov. Kate Brown, Corrections
Department Director Colette Peters and Health Authority Director
Patrick Allen, among other state officials. The lawsuit
acknowledges the Corrections Department has taken some measures but
argues they have not been enough.
"This really is quite a groundbreaking order, and decision, and it
could potentially be a model for advocates in other parts of the
country where they're having similar problems,"
Corene Kendrick, deputy director of the American Civil Liberty
Union's National Prison Project, told Oregon Public Broadcasting.
In Oregon, 45 people in the Department of Corrections custody have
so far died after testing positive for COVID-19, and more than
5,000 people have tested positive for the virus while in custody.
Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman signed off on a wrongful death
class that will include the estates of 45 adults who died in the
state's custody and "for whom COVID-19 caused or contributed to
their death." The other is a damages class that would include
anyone incarcerated after Feb. 1, 2020, who was diagnosed with
COVID-19 at least 14 days after they were incarcerated.
The state could appeal Beckerman's ruling, settle or take the cases
to trial. Spokespeople for the governor's office, the Oregon
Department of Corrections and the state's Department of Justice
declined to comment on the pending litigation.
Attorneys bringing the lawsuit already used it to secure vaccines
for adults in custody in February 2021 before vaccines were widely
available.
In her ruling, Beckerman said she found the theory of the case was
sufficient to certify classes. Other questions, she wrote, could
only be answered by a jury, should the cases go to trial. For
example, Beckerman did not answer whether the state acted with
deliberate indifference or whether that indifference was the reason
thousands were sickened with COVID-19. [GN]
ORSUGA CONSULTING: Kucken Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shawnah Kucken, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Orsuga Consulting, LLC, dba Pinnacle Growth Advisors;
Brent Orsuga; and Susanna Orsuga, Case No. 2:22-cv-00573-CDB (D.
Ariz., April 7, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime at the rate
of one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for all time
worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek, and an accounting
for, and payment of, unpaid commissions; and FICA and Medicare
taxes imposed on them as a result of being misclassified as an
independent contractor instead of an employee under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff routinely worked with
knowledge of Defendants, and often at the request of Defendants, in
excess of 40 hours per week during her tenure at Pinnacle. But the
Defendants did not track the hours worked by Plaintiff or the
Collective Members. The Plaintiff's financial compensation was all
in commissions; she did not receive a salary or hourly wage for her
work, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and other persons similarly situated are current or
former inside sales employees of the Defendants.
Pinnacle is a recruiting company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brad A. Denton, Esq.
Jay Parmelee, Esq.
ARIZONA BUSINESS LAWYER
arizonabusinesslawyeraz.com
1930 N. Arboleda Road, Suite 200
MESA, AZ 85213
Telephone: (480) 325-9900
Facsimile: (480) 325-9901
E-mail: Brad@DentonPeterson.com
Jay@DentonPeterson.com
OTONOMO INC: Mollaei Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Otonomo Inc. The case
is styled as Saman Mollaei, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Otonomo Inc., Case No. CGC22599118 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 11, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Otonomo -- https://otonomo.io/ -- provides car manufacturers,
drivers, and service providers with a cloud-based solution that
connects millions of car.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rafey Sarkis Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 212-9300
Fax: (415) 373-9435
Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com
PEPSICO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Drobsch Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
DEVIN DROBSCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PEPSICO, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00550-DSC (W.D., Pa., April 12, 2022)) is an action against
the Defendants for unpaid regular hours and overtime hours, minimum
wages, prejudgment interest, liquidated damages and penalties.
Plaintiff Drobsch was employed by Defendant as staff.
PepsiCo, Inc. operates worldwide beverage, snack, and food
businesses. The Company manufactures or uses contract
manufacturers, markets, and sells a variety of grain-based snacks,
carbonated and non-carbonated beverages, and foods in countries
throughout the world. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
Email: matt@parmet.law
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Bryski Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to S.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TOVA BRYSKI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No.
0:21-cv-62285, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on April 11, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 2:22-cv-01929-MHW-CMV to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unjust enrichment,
breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and
violation of the Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
by failing to disclose to consumers that its over-the-counter
aerosol antiperspirant products sold under the brand names "Old
Spice" and "Secret" contain benzene, a known human carcinogen.
The Procter & Gamble Company is a consumer goods manufacturer based
in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzhak Levin, Esq.
LEVIN LITIGATION, PLLC
3475 Sheridan Street, Ste. 311
Hollywood, FL 33021
Telephone: (954) 678-5155
Facsimile: (954) 678-5156
E-mail: ylevin@levinlitigation.com
- and –
Ruben Honik, Esq.
David J. Stanoch, Esq.
HONIK LLC
1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 435-1300
E-mail: ruben@honiklaw.com
david@honiklaw.com
- and –
Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq.
Layne Hilton, Esq.
KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
701 Camp Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 524-5777
E-mail: c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
l.hilton@kanner-law.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Canaday Suit Moved From S.D. Cal. to S.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HALEY CANADAY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No.
3:21-cv-02024, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on April 11, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 2:22-cv-01926-MHW-CMV to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California's Unfair Competition Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, and the False Advertising Law by failing to disclose to
consumers that its over-the-counter aerosol antiperspirant products
sold under the brand names "Old Spice" and "Secret" contain
benzene, a known human carcinogen.
The Procter & Gamble Company is a consumer goods manufacturer based
in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
Sue J. Nam, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
snam@reesellp.com
- and –
George V. Granade, Esq.
REESE LLP
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
Los Angeles, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 393-0070
Facsimile (212) 253-4272
E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com
- and –
Charles D. Moore, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 South 5th Street, Suite 1900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
E-mail: cmoore@reesellp.com
- and –
Kenneth D. Quat, Esq.
QUAT LAW OFFICES
373 Winch Street
Framingham, MA 01701
Telephone: (508) 872-1261
E-mail: ken@quatlaw.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Leyva Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to S.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANGELA LEYVA and ANDREA FAHEY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE
COMPANY, Case No. 4:21-cv-10108, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on April 11,
2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 2:22-cv-01930-MHW-CMV to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unjust enrichment,
breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, fraud, and
violation of the Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
by failing to disclose to consumers that its over-the-counter
aerosol antiperspirant products contain benzene, a known human
carcinogen.
The Procter & Gamble Company is a consumer goods manufacturer based
in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com
- and –
Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Toporek Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to S.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL TOPOREK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No.
2:21-cv-06185, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on April 11, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 2:22-cv-01927-MHW-CMV to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the New
York General Business Law, breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent concealment,
medical monitoring, and unjust enrichment by failing to disclose to
consumers that its body spray products contain benzene, a known
human carcinogen.
The Procter & Gamble Company is a consumer goods manufacturer based
in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Joseph Lipari, Esq.
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and –
David C. Magagna Jr., Esq.
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Banks Files Suit in D. Colorado
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Preferred
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Hersey Banks, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progressive
Preferred Insurance Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-00878-RM (D. Colo.,
April 12, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract.
Progressive Preferred Insurance Company --
http://www.progressive.com/-- provides insurances services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John 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
REALOGY HOLDINGS: NDNC, DNC Classes Certified
---------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order:
1. certifying the National Do Not Call Registry Nationwide
(NDNC) class and Prerecorded Message class under Rule
23(b)(3)l;
2. certifying the National Internal Do Not Call (Internal
DNC) class under Rule 23(b)(2);
3. denying certification for Prerecorded Message Mojo class;
4. appointing Sarah Bumpus as class representative of the
NDNC class and Internal DNC class;
5. appointing the Plaintiffs Cheryl Rowan and Micheline
Pecker as class representatives of the Prerecorded Message
class; and
6. appointing Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Reese LLP, and Kaufman
P.A. as class counsel for all three classes.
The Plaintiffs are directed to file by April 22, 2022, a proposed
plan for dissemination of notice to the classes. The Plaintiffs
will meet and confer with defendants at least 10 days in advance of
submitting 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, 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 Plaintiffs asked the Court for an order:
1. certifying the 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 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
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/3JqyCVC
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
REALREAL INC: Sued Over Alleged Illegal Employment Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
LAKESHIA COOK-FARRAR, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. THE REALREAL, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-22-599036 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 7, 2022) challenges systemic
illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the
California Labor Code against individuals who worked for the
Defendant.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, jointly and severally,
have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and
conscious disregard to the rights of all employees by failing to
provide itemized, accurate wage statements, failing to pay meal and
rest period premium at the regular rate of pay, failing to pay sick
pay at the regular rate of pay, and all wages due at termination.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Customer Service
Representative from about October 2018 to about October 28, 2021.
The Plaintiff worked as an hourly non-exempt employee.
RealReal is an online and brick-and-mortar marketplace for
authenticated luxury consignment. Based on the circular economy,
The RealReal sells consigned clothing, fine jewelry, watches, fine
art and home decor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
Shalom "Christine" Choo, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
christine@diversitylaw.com
- and -
William L. Marder, Esq.
POLARIS LAW GROUP
501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
Hollister, CA 95023
Telephone: (831) 531-4214
Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com
- and -
Edward W. Choi, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 381-1515
Facsimile: (213) 465-4885
E-mail: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com
RLS-CMC INC: Kinzel Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GEOFFREY KINZEL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RLS-CMC, INC.; ROGER SANCHEZ; JASMINE
BORMANN; and DOES 1 to 10 and 13 to 20, inclusive, Case No.
CVRI2101907, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Riverside, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on April 8, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-00602 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code.
RLS-CMC, Inc. is a contractor located in Nevada. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
M. Danton Richardson, Esq.
John. W. Fagerholm, Esq.
Stephanie B. Greenberg, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN W. FAGERHOLM, LTD
725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3065
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (323) 289-2260
Facsimile: (323) 642-5441
E-mail: drichardson@jwflawltd.com
jfagerholm@jwflawltd.com
sgreenberg@jwflawltd.com
SAUVAGE INC: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sauvage, Inc. The
case is styled as Christopher Loadholt, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Sauvage, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03004 (S.D.N.Y., April 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sauvage Swimwear -- https://www.sauvagewear.com/ -- is a designers
of Men's and Women's Swimwear, Glamorous beachwear, bikinis Made in
San Diego, California, United States.[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
SENTINEL TRANSPORTATION: Valencia Labor Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSE VALENCIA and BRANDON JEROUE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SENTINEL
TRANSPORTATION, LLC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
22CV00951, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Santa Barbara, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on April 11, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-02430 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 reimburse for necessary business
expenses; unpaid minimum wages, regular wages, overtime wages, and
reporting time pay; non-compliant wage statements; and unfair
competition.
Sentinel Transportation, LLC is a transportation services provider
based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael S. Chamberlin, Esq.
Nicholas D. Poper, Esq.
Vivian Y. Shen, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Telephone: (310) 820-8800
Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
E-mail: mchamberlin@bakerlaw.com
npoper@bakerlaw.com
vshen@bakerlaw.com
SOCIETY INSURANCE: Class Certification in Alley 64 Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALLEY 64, INC., d/b/a Alley 64, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff and
Counterdefendant-Appellee v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, Defendant and
Counterplaintiff-Appellant, Case No. 2-21-0401 (Ill. App.), the
Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, reversed the trial
court's order granting class certification.
I. Background
The matter is an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's order
granting class certification in the underlying insurance coverage
case. The Plaintiff, doing business as Alley 64, owns and operates
a restaurant and bar in St. Charles. Alley 64 filed a declaratory
judgment action, individually and on behalf of all members of the
putative class, against the Defendant, Society.
Alley 64 sought a declaration of coverage under the "Contamination"
provision of its commercial property insurance policy with Society
for business losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic and Gov. Jay
Robert Pritzker's executive orders prohibiting on-premises
consumption of food and beverages. Alley 64 also brought a count
for bad-faith denial of its coverage claim.
Society filed a countercomplaint for a declaration of no coverage
and moved for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court denied
Society's motion for judgment on the pleadings and entered judgment
for Alley 64 on the coverage claim and countercomplaint.
The trial court subsequently granted Alley 64's motion for class
certification. Following argument on June 22, 2021, the trial court
certified the class as follows: "All Illinois restaurants, taverns,
and bars that (1) were an insured as of March 20, 2020, under a
Society insurance policy that incorporates 'Form TBP2 (05-15)'
titled 'Businessowners Special Property Coverage Form' and not
containing the 'ISO Virus Exclusion,' and (2) were required to shut
down or suspend their business operations, including the partial
slowdown or complete cessation of their business activities, due to
Governor Pritzker's March 20, 2020 Executive Order."
The Appellate Court granted Society's petition for leave to appeal
from the trial court's order granting class certification pursuant
to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(8).
II. Analysis
Society argues that the trial court abused its discretion in
certifying the class, because Alley 64 does not have a valid cause
of action and failed to meet the statutory prerequisites for class
certification. Alley 64 responds that the contamination coverage
under Additional Coverage m of the policy was triggered and that it
established all requirements for class certification.
A. Scope of Review
Initially, the parties dispute whether the merits of the underlying
declaratory judgment claim are encompassed within the scope of the
Appellate Court's review.
Consideration of the underlying validity of the coverage claim in
the Appellate Court's interlocutory review of the order granting
class certification is not just permissible, but necessary, to a
resolution of the appeal. It further observes that the injection of
the underlying merits of the claim into the scope of its review is
also a function of the procedural posture of the case.
The trial court denied Society's motion for judgment on the
pleadings and sua sponte entered judgment on the pleadings in Alley
64's favor. Judgment was entered on the pure legal question of
whether there is coverage under Additional Coverage m of the
policy. The trial court subsequently granted Alley 64's motion for
class certification. Thus, at the point the class was certified,
coverage under the policy -- the issue relevant to both class
certification and the merits -- already had been resolved by the
trial court.
Significantly, Society's challenges on appeal with respect to the
validity of the underlying claim do not raise disputed factual
questions. Rather, its challenges are to the interpretation of the
policy—a question of law upon which the trial court has ruled.
Alley 64 provides no explanation as to how the Appellate Court
might parse these issues in reviewing whether the statutory
prerequisites for class certification were met.
In sum, the Appellate Court's review of the propriety of the class
certification order necessitates consideration of the threshold
issue of whether Alley 64 has a valid cause of action for
contamination coverage under the policy. It turns to that issue.
B. Validity of Coverage Claim
The parties dispute whether Alley 64 alleged a valid claim for
contamination coverage under Additional Coverage m(1) and m(2)(a).
Their arguments center on interpretation of the policy terms set
forth in Additional Coverage m. Moreover, Society argues that, even
if Alley 64 could establish coverage, the claim is barred by the
ordinance or law and acts or decisions exclusions. The legal
sufficiency of Alley 64's coverage claim involving an
interpretation of the insurance policy is a question of law, which
the Appellate Court reviews de novo
The Appellate Court rejects Alley 64's argument that the
possibility of injury, pain, harm, or loss resulting from the state
of the premises suffices to establish a dangerous condition in its
premises as required by the policy. The clear and unambiguous
definition of contamination requires the dangerous condition to
have been in Alley 64's premises. In that Alley 64 failed to allege
that its operations were suspended due to contamination in its
premises, it does not have a valid claim for coverage under either
Additional Coverage m(1) or m(2)(a).
Moreover, contrary to Alley 64's argument, a limitation on the use
of the premises does not equate to a prohibition on access to the
premises. The orders permitted and encouraged the service of food
and beverages for off-site consumption. Employees and staff were
allowed access to the premises. Customers were allowed to enter the
premises to place or pick up orders. Limiting the use of the
premises does not amount to prohibition of access to the premises.
Accordingly, Alley 64 does not have a valid claim for coverage
under Additional Coverage m(2)(a).
Given the foregoing analysis and its conclusion that there is no
coverage under Additional Coverage m, the Appellate Court declines
to consider Society's arguments that any coverage would be barred
by the ordinance or aw and acts or decisions exclusions.
In sum, Alley 64 does not have a valid claim for contamination
coverage under Additional Coverage m. The Appellate Court therefore
needs not determine whether Alley 64 satisfied the statutory
prerequisites for class certification. In closing, it recognizes
that the restaurant industry has been saddled with immense
challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, with devastating impact on
these businesses and their employees, contractors, and suppliers.
The Appellate Court's disposition in no way discounts what the
restaurant industry has had to endure. However, for the reasons it
discussed, it is compelled to hold that Alley 64 did not allege a
valid claim for contamination coverage under Additional Coverage m
and that the lawsuit, therefore, may not proceed as a class
action.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the trial court's order granting class
certification is reversed, and the cause is remanded for
proceedings consistent with the Appellate Court's opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2tu38zn4 from Leagle.com.
Michael D. Sanders -- msanders@pw-law.com -- Michelle A. Miner, Amy
E. Frantz, and Barret W. Whalen, of Purcell & Wardrope, Chtrd., of
Chicago, for the Appellant.
Peter J. Flowers, Ted A. Meyers, and Michael W. Lenert, of Meyers
and Flowers, LLC, of St. Charles, and Caesar A. Tabet, Michael J.
Grant, John M. Fitzgerald, and Amie M. Bauer, of Tabet Divito &
Rothstein LLC, of Chicago, for the Appellee.
SOLARWINDS CORP: Thompson's Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE SOLARWINDS CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 1:21-CV-138-RP (W.D. Tex.), Judge Robert Pitman of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin
Division, issued an order:
a. denying Brown and SolarWinds' motion to dismiss, Silver
Lake's motion to dismiss, and Thoma Bravo's motion to
dismiss; and
b. granting Defendant Kevin B. Thompson's motion to dismiss.
I. Background
Before the Court is a consolidated motion to dismiss by Defendants
Tim Brown and SolarWinds Corporation; a motion to dismiss by
Defendants Silver Lake Group, LLC and Silver Lake Technology
Management, LLC (collectively, "Silver Lake"); a motion to dismiss
by Defendant Kevin B. Thompson; and a motion to dismiss by
Defendant Thoma Bravo, LP. The Plaintiffs, members of a putative
class, filed a consolidated response in opposition, and Brown and
SolarWinds filed a reply, as did Silver Lake, Thompson, and Thoma
Bravo.
The case concerns a cybersecurity breach that occurred at
SolarWinds, a publicly traded company that, during the class
period, provided information technology software to a host of
private and government actors. The parties do not appear to dispute
that the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service injected a malicious
code into SolarWinds "Orion" software, which was discovered in late
2020. When the infected code was downloaded onto a customer's
server, it could be used to compromise the server. As a result of
the breach, SolarWinds' stock value plummeted leading to the
present class-action complaint against SolarWinds.
The Lead Plaintiff in the action is the New York City District
Council of Carpenters Pension Fund. On Feb. 9, 2021, the Plaintiffs
filed their initial complaint in the Court, seeking recovery under
the Exchange Act on behalf of the Carpenters Pension Fund "and all
persons and entities, except the Defendants and their affiliates,
and who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
SolarWinds between Oct. 18, 2018, and Dec. 17, 2020(the "Class
Period') and were damaged" as a result of the breach and SolarWinds
stock's resultant loss of value.
The Plaintiffs later filed a consolidated complaint, and have now
alleged causes of action against SolarWinds, Thompson (SolarWinds
CEO during the class period), J. Barton Kalsu (SolarWinds'
Executive VP, CFO, and Treasurer during the class period), Tim
Brown (SolarWinds' VP of Security Architecture during the class
period), and Silver Lake and Thoma Bravo (private equity firms each
owning approximately 40% of SolarWinds' securities during the class
period).
According to the Plaintiff's complaint, SolarWinds customers--which
included the U.S. Pentagon, State Department, Office of the
President, FBI, Secret Service, and National Security
Administration--utilized SolarWinds' information technology
software. Given its customers' highly sensitive data and need for
significant cybersecurity measures, SolarWinds "falsely and
misleadingly" told investors that SolarWinds had a robust
cybersecurity system and adhered to specific cybersecurity
practices set forth in a "Security Statement" on its website. The
Security Statement represented that SolarWinds had a security team,
had an information security policy, provided security training to
its employees, followed a password policy, and segmented its
network, among other things.
However, SolarWinds purported security measures were "woefully
deficient and not as represented." Indications that SolarWinds'
cybersecurity efforts were not as they seemed include a
presentation given by Ian Thornton-Trump, SolarWinds former Global
Cybersecurity Strategist, before the class period began.
Thornton-Trump's presentation was given to the Company's top
executives including individuals who reported directly to Thompson.
Thornton-Trumps presentation addressed SolarWinds' deficient
cybersecurity practices. Thompson's direct-reports noted that
Thompson would not be willing to invest in the cybersecurity
improvements proposed by Thornton-Trump; when the company refused
to implement Thornton-Trump's changes, he resigned in protest.
During the class period, on Nov. 11, 2019, a cybersecurity
researcher notified SolarWinds in writing that the password for its
Update Server -- the server from which customers downloaded
software updates for the Company's products -- had been publicly
available on the website GitHub for around one-and-a-half years.
The password was "solarwinds 123." It had been set by an intern and
remained unchanged since it was posted on GitHub. Brown and
SolarWinds changed the password within an hour of receiving the
email, but did not disclose the password leak, nor its
significance: That any hacker could have used the password to
upload malicious files to the server SolarWinds customers used to
download updates. Ten former employees of the company also stated
that SolarWinds did not employ the cybersecurity measures it
purported to employ.
One week before the breach was revealed and SolarWinds' stock price
dropped, Thompson sold over $20 million in SolarWinds stock and
Silver Lake and Thoma Bravo sold $261 million in shares. After the
breach, which was widely reported on by major media outlets, was
discovered in late 2020, SolarWinds' share price plummeted 34%.
Customers abandoned the company's software, and the homeland
security adviser to President Donald Trump stated that "the
magnitude of this ongoing attack is hard to overstate." The stock
price has not recovered, and analysists have continued to reduce
its price targets. The Department of Justice, the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC"), and various state Attorneys General
are investigating SolarWinds' alleged misconduct. SolarWinds' new
CEO, Sudhakar Ramakrishna, plans to institute several reforms to
improve SolarWinds' cybersecurity efforts.
Brown, SolarWinds, Thompson, Silver Lake, and Thoma Bravo heavily
dispute the Plaintiffs' allegations, and each filed a motion to
dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
alleging that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Defendants Brown and SolarWinds filed
their motion to dismiss on Aug. 2, 2021, asserting that the
Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead that they engaged in
material, misleading statements or omissions, failed to demonstrate
a strong inference that they acted with scienter, and failed to
allege that the material, misleading statements or omissions caused
the Plaintiffs' losses.
Thompson similarly seeks dismissal on the ground that the
Plaintiffs failed to allege that he made any material, false or
misleading statements, or that he possessed the mental state
required under the Exchange Act. Thompson, Silver Lake, and Thoma
Bravo each aver that Plaintiffs have failed to properly assert a
control-person claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act).
II. Discussion
A. Brown and SolarWinds' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion
The Plaintiffs bring their claims against Brown and SolarWinds
pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
1. Scienter
Brown and SolarWinds make four primary arguments in support of
their claim that the Plaintiffs failed to effectively plead
scienter. First, they argue that Thornton-Trump's presentation on
the security practices does not offer evidence of Scienter. Second,
they argue that the 10 anonymous former employees whose statements
the Plaintiffs rely on did not work closely with SolarWinds'
security infrastructure, that the Plaintiffs fail to allege that
any of the former employees communicated their concerns about the
company's security to any the Defendants, and that anonymous, vague
statements are not sufficient to support an inference of scienter.
Third, Brown and SolarWinds assert that the company's server that
was the site of the "solarwinds123" password incident was
completely unrelated to the server that was compromised during the
cybersecurity breach. Finally, Brown and SolarWinds assert that
stock sales by some Defendants does not raise an inference of
scienter.
Judge Pitman finds that the Plaintiffs sufficiently plead that
Defendant Brown acted with, at least, severe recklessness when he
touted the security measures implemented at SolarWinds. The
Plaintiffs sufficiently plead that Defendant Brown acted with, at
least, severe recklessness when he touted the security measures
implemented at SolarWinds. Further, Brown and SolarWinds arguments
regarding the "solarwinds123" password breach do not provide a
strong, plausible inference opposing scienter. Next, the statements
of ten former employees rebutting Brown and SolarWinds'
representations regarding cybersecurity aids the inference of
scienter. Thornton-Trump's statements, when looked at in light of
the above-mentioned allegations that the cybersecurity measures at
SolarWinds were not as strong as Brown repeatedly represented
during the class period, support the Court's conclusion that
Plaintiffs have plausibly asserted the element of scienter.
Taking the foregoing, well-pleaded allegations as true and
evaluating the facts collectively, Judge Pitman finds that the
Plaintiffs have met their pleading obligations at this stage and
declines to grant Brown and SolarWinds' motion to dismiss on the
grounds that the Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead scienter.
2. Material misrepresentations or omissions
Brown and SolarWinds further move to dismiss the complaint on the
grounds that the Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead that the
Defendants engaged in material misrepresentations or omissions.
They state that the complaint fails to attribute the SolarWinds
website Security Statement to any individual defendant as required
by Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
Judge Pitman holds that the Plaintiffs have alleged that Brown and
Thompson "made" these statements sufficient to survive a motion to
dismiss. Further, while corporate "cheerleading" and puffery are
not actionable under securities law, only statements that "contain
no concrete factual or material misrepresentation" may be deemed
"puffery." The Defendants' disclosures to customers and investors
about the risk of cybersecurity attacks does not force the
conclusion that their alleged statements were not false or
misleading. Finally, the Court is required to accept the
Plaintiffs' plausible allegations as true at this stage and finds
that this is a factual dispute not appropriate for resolution in a
motion to dismiss. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Pitman finds
that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged misleading material
statements.
3. Loss causation
Lastly, Brown and SolarWinds ask the Court to find the Plaintiffs
have not adequately alleged that the material misstatements or
omissions and the Plaintiffs' reliance on them caused them loss.
Judge Pitman finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
that it is more probable than not that these sorts of corrective
disclosures caused the virtually simultaneous drops in the prices
of SolarWinds' securities. Based on his foregoing analysis, he
denies Brown and SolarWinds' motion to dismiss.
B. Thompson's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion
Defendant Thompson filed a separate motion to dismiss to address
the allegations in the complaint that reference him specifically.
He asserts that the complaint does not attribute a single false or
misleading statement or omission to him, does not allege any
particularized facts sufficient to raise a strong inference that
Thompson acted with scienter, and does not contain any well-pleaded
factual allegations to support a claim against Thompson under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Judge Pitman finds that Thompson's sole objection to control-person
liability is that the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently plead their
claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, but the Court
has already found that the Plaintiffs have done so. And, because
the other allegations of scienter against Thompson are lacking,
Judge Pitman finds the Plaintiffs' assertions that Thompson must
have known about Thornton-Trump's presentation do not weigh heavily
in favor of a strong inference of scienter. For these reasons, he
finds that Plaintiffs have failed to effectively plead scienter as
to Thompson and thus the Court must grant Thompson's motion to
dismiss. However, he grants the Plaintiffs leave to amend.
C. Silver Lake and Thoma Bravo's Motions to Dismiss
The Plaintiffs allege that Silver Lake and Thoma Bravo, two private
equity firms, owned over 80% of SolarWinds' stock (40% each),
permitting them to seat three directors each on SolarWinds' board
of directors. They assert Silver Lake and Thoma Bravo "sacrificed
cybersecurity to generate short-term profits" for themselves as
principal owners of SolarWinds. As such, the Plaintiffs claim
Silver Lake and Thoma Bravo violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act because they were controlling persons of the company who had
direct involvement in the day-to-day operations of SolarWinds and
had the power to control the "materially false and misleading
public statements about SolarWinds during the Class Period."
Both Silver Lake and Thoma Bravo filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. In their motions, both Silver Lake and Thoma Bravo argue
that Section 20(a) requires and primary violation of the Exchange
Act, which the Plaintiffs have failed to allege.
Judge Pitman has already found that the Plaintiffs have alleged a
primary violation of the Exchange Act pursuant to Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder. See supra Part III(A), (B)(1). Therefore, he
turns to the second issue and the crux of both motions -- whether
the Plaintiffs have properly alleged Silver Lake and Thoma Bravo
have direct or indirect control of the primary violator.
Judge Pitman finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
Silver Lake and Thoma Bravo acted in concert to control SolarWinds.
Texas district courts have held that bare allegations that
shareholders acted jointly without allegations of how the
shareholders worked together, either separately or jointly, are not
sufficient. However, in the case, the Plaintiffs have specified the
activities Silver Lake and Thoma Bravo allegedly engaged in
together to exert control over SolarWinds. These allegations that
Silver Lake and Thoma Bravo acted jointly to exercise control over
SolarWinds are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
D. Leave to Amend
The Plaintiffs requested that, should the Court grant any relief
under the motions to dismiss, that it grant leave to amend the
complaint. As such, Judge Pitman allows the Plaintiffs to re-plead
their allegations of scienter against Thompson.
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, Judge Putman denied Brown and SolarWinds' motion
to dismiss, Silver Lake's motion to dismiss, and Thoma Bravo's
motion to dismiss. He granted Thompson's motion to dismiss. Should
Plaintiffs wish to amend their complaint against Thompson, the
deadline to file their amended complaint was April 18, 2022.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4er8j39h from Leagle.com.
STRAIGHT SMILE: Russell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Straight Smile LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Deborah Russell, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Straight Smile LLC, Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. CGC22599119 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., April 11, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Business Tort."
Straight Smile, LLC is located in Santa Monica, California and is
part of the Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Stephen Arns, Esq.
THE ARNS LAW FIRM
515 Folsom St 3FL
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-495-7800
Fax: 415-495-7888
Email: rsa@arnslaw.com
SWAPPA LLC: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Swappa, LLC. The case
is styled as Christopher Loadholt, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Swappa, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03013
(S.D.N.Y., April 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Swappa -- https://swappa.com/ -- is a user-to-user marketplace for
buying and selling new and gently used technology.[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
SWEETLY SPIRITED: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sweetly Spirited
Artisan Desserts LLC. The case is styled as Linda Slade,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Sweetly Spirited Artisan Desserts LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02964 (S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sweetly Spirited -- https://sweetlyspirited.com/ -- have perfected
the art of alcohol-infused cupcakes, lovingly adding premium
spirits to already delicious recipes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
TA OPERATING: Holley-Gallegly Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KENNETH HOLLEY-GALLEGLY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. TA OPERATING LLC, d/b/a "Travel
Centers of America" and d/b/a "Petro Shopping Center," and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2201378, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 7, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-00593 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages at the legal overtime
pay rate, failure to pay premium wages at the legal pay rate,
failure to provide legally-compliant rest periods, derivative and
independent failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to reimburse work expenses, and penalties.
TA Operating LLC, doing business as Travel Centers of America and
Petro Shopping Center, is an owner and operator of gasoline service
stations, headquartered in Westlake, Ohio. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Mia Farber, Esq.
Eric J. Gitig, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Telephone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
E-mail: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com
Eric.Gitig@jacksonlewis.com
- and –
Semarnpreet Kaur, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
200 Spectrum Center Dr., Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 885-1360
Facsimile: (949) 885-1380
E-mail: Semarnpreet.Kaur@jacksonlewis.com
TILRAY BRANDS: Faces Bouvier Stockholder Suit in Del. Ch.
---------------------------------------------------------
Tilray Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
fiscal year ended February 28, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 6, 2022, that the former CEO of
Tilray, Brendan Kennedy, is facing a derivative complaint in the
Delaware Court of Chancery styled "Bouvier v. Kennedy," (C.A. No.
2020-0154-KSJM) in March 2, 2020 filed by stockholders Catherine
Bouvier, James Hawkins, and Stephanie Hawkins.
The operative complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against Brendan Kennedy, Christian Groh, Michael Blue, and
Privateer Evolution, LLC for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in
their alleged capacities as Tilray's controlling stockholders and
against Kennedy, Maryscott Greenwood, and Michael Auerbach for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in their capacities as
directors and/or officers of Tilray in connection with the prior
merger of Privateer Holdings, Inc. with and into a wholly owned
subsidiary.
The complaint alleges that the Privateer Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by causing Tilray to enter into the merger and
Tilray's Board to approve same and that Kennedy, Greenwood and
Auerbach breached their fiduciary duties as directors by approving
the same. Plaintiffs allege that the merger gave the defendants
hundreds of millions of dollars of tax savings without providing a
corresponding benefit to Tilray and its minority stockholders and
that the merger unfairly transferred and extended Kennedy, Blue,
and Groh's control over Tilray.
On July 17, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting substantially similar claims. On August 14, 2020, Tilray
and the Privateer defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. At the February 5, 2021 hearing on Defendants' Motions
to Dismiss, the Plaintiffs agreed that their perpetuation of
control claims are moot and stated that they intend to move for a
fee award in connection with those claims. On June 1, 2021, the
court denied defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.
In August 2021, the company's Board of Directors established a
Special Litigation Committee (SLC) of independent directors to
re-assert director control and investigate the derivative claims in
this litigation matter. The SLC has appointed the law firm Wilson
Sonsini to assist the SLC with an ongoing investigation of the
underlying claim and determine whether continued prosecution of
such claims is in the best interests of the Company. The SLC has
successfully moved to have the plaintiff's discovery stayed during
their investigation.
Tilray Brands, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries is a global
cannabis-lifestyle and consumer packaged goods company
headquartered in Leamington, Ontario, Canada, with operations in
Canada, the United States, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Latin
America.
TILRAY BRANDS: Faces Braun Stockholder Suit in Del. Ch.
-------------------------------------------------------
Tilray Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
fiscal year ended February 28, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 6, 2022, that the former CEO of
Tilray, Brendan Kennedy, is facing a derivative complaint in the
Delaware Court of Chancery styled "Braun v. Kennedy," (C.A. No.
2020-0137-KSJM) in February 27, 2020 filed by stockholders Deborah
Braun and Nader Noorian.
The operative complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against Brendan Kennedy, Christian Groh, Michael Blue, and
Privateer Evolution, LLC for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in
their alleged capacities as Tilray's controlling stockholders and
against Kennedy, Maryscott Greenwood, and Michael Auerbach for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in their capacities as
directors and/or officers of Tilray in connection with the prior
merger of Privateer Holdings, Inc. with and into a wholly owned
subsidiary.
The complaint alleges that the Privateer Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by causing Tilray to enter into the merger and
Tilray's Board to approve same and that Kennedy, Greenwood and
Auerbach breached their fiduciary duties as directors by approving
the same. Plaintiffs allege that the merger gave the defendants
hundreds of millions of dollars of tax savings without providing a
corresponding benefit to Tilray and its minority stockholders and
that the merger unfairly transferred and extended Kennedy, Blue,
and Groh's control over Tilray.
On July 17, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting substantially similar claims. On August 14, 2020, Tilray
and the Privateer defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. At the February 5, 2021 hearing on Defendants' Motions
to Dismiss, the Plaintiffs agreed that their perpetuation of
control claims are moot and stated that they intend to move for a
fee award in connection with those claims. On June 1, 2021, the
court denied defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.
In August 2021, the Company's Board of Directors established a
Special Litigation Committee (SLC) of independent directors to
re-assert director control and investigate the derivative claims in
this litigation matter. The SLC has appointed the law firm Wilson
Sonsini to assist the SLC with an ongoing investigation of the
underlying claim and determine whether continued prosecution of
such claims is in the best interests of the Company. The SLC has
successfully moved to have the plaintiff's discovery stayed during
their investigation.
Tilray Brands, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries is a global
cannabis-lifestyle and consumer packaged goods company
headquartered in Leamington, Ontario, Canada, with operations in
Canada, the United States, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Latin
America.
TILRAY BRANDS: Kasilingam Stockholder Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Tilray Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
fiscal year ended February 28, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 6, 2022, that a stockholder suit filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
was dismissed on September 27, 2021.
On May 4, 2020, Ganesh Kasilingam filed a lawsuit in said court
against Tilray Brands, Inc., Brendan Kennedy and Mark Castaneda, on
behalf of himself and a putative class, seeking to recover damages
for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleged that Tilray
and the individual defendants overstated the anticipated advantages
of the company's revenue sharing agreement with Authentic Brands
Group (ABG), announced on January 15, 2019, and that the plaintiff
suffered losses when Tilray's stock price dropped after Tilray
recognized an impairment with respect to the ABG deal on March 2,
2020.
On September 27, 2021, the U.S. District Court entered an Opinion &
Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in
the Kasilingam litigation. On December 3, 2021, the lead plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint alleging similar claims against
Tilray and Brendan Kennedy.
Tilray Brands, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries is a global
cannabis-lifestyle and consumer packaged goods company
headquartered in Leamington, Ontario, Canada, with operations in
Canada, the United States, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Latin
America.
ULTA BEAUTY: Chandler Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed W/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BARBARA CHANDLER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ULTA BEAUTY, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-1577 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Martha M. Pacold
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
I. Background
In this putative class action, Lead Plaintiffs Lawrence Banker,
Danny Hurlbut, Marlene Hurlbut, and Cynthia Busse allege that
Defendants Ulta Beauty, Inc. and Ulta Salon and Cosmetics &
Fragrance, Inc. (together, "Ulta") engaged in a widespread practice
of reshelving returned, used cosmetics products and reselling the
products as new. The Plaintiffs contend that Ulta's CEO Mary Dillon
and CFO Scott Settersten (together with Ulta, "Defendants") were
aware of this practice and made dozens of misleading statements by
failing to disclose it. They assert that the Defendants' actions
amount to securities fraud.
Founded in 1990 and headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois, Ulta is
a publicly-traded company that "purports to be the largest beauty
retailer in the United States." Defendant Dillon was appointed as
Ulta's CEO in June 2013 and is a member of Ulta's Board of
Directors. Defendant Settersten joined Ulta in 2005 as a Director
of Financial Reporting. He became Ulta's CFO in March 2013 and
serves as the company's Assistant Secretary.
The Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the amended complaint
fails to state a claim because it does not adequately allege a
materially misleading misrepresentation or omission and does not
set forth facts showing that the Defendants acted with scienter.
II. Discussion
The Defendants contend that the complaint does not state a claim
for securities fraud because the Plaintiffs allege neither a
material misrepresentation or omission nor scienter. And, because
the complaint does not state a claim for securities fraud, they
argue the complaint also does not state a claim for control person
liability.
I. Violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
(Count I)
To establish a violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5, "a plaintiff must prove (1) a material misrepresentation
or omission by the defendant; (2) scienter; (3) a connection
between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale
of a security; (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission;
(5) economic loss; and (6) loss causation."
The Defendants contend that Count I fails to state a claim for
securities fraud because the complaint does not adequately allege
(1) a material misrepresentation or omission or (2) scienter.
A. The Complaint Does Not Allege A Material Misrepresentation or
Omission
Judge Pacold holds that altogether, the complaint does not
adequately allege a material misrepresentation or omission
regarding the statements made about Ulta's Code of Conduct. The
complaint does not allege facts from which it could be reasonably
inferred that these statements are false or misleading. Regarding
the certifications that Dillon and Settersten believed Ulta had
adequate internal controls, the complaint does not allege any facts
showing that they did not believe Ulta's controls were adequate or
effective. As to the certifications that Ulta's SEC forms contained
no material misrepresentations, the complaint does not put forth
facts to reasonably infer that there was a material misstatement in
Ulta's filings.
The complaint also does not contain factual allegations from which
it can be reasonably inferred that Dillon and Settersten were
actually aware of the practice of selling used products so, even if
Ulta's SEC filings did contain material misstatements, it was not
false for Dillon and Settersten to represent that they were unaware
of any material misrepresentations.
B. The Complaint's Allegations Do Not Support A Strong Inference of
Scienter
Reviewing the complaint's allegations "collectively," Judge Pacold
opines that the complaint does not raise a strong inference that
Dillon or Settersten acted knowingly or recklessly when publishing
any alleged misstatements. The complaint lacks any allegations that
Dillon or Settersten knew, or were recklessly unaware, of the
practice of reselling used products, and the complaint fails to set
forth any basis from which their scienter could reasonably be
inferred. The strongest allegations in support of such an inference
are the allegations that the practice of reselling used products
was widespread across most, if not all, Ulta stores and that
managers and others encouraged it. But no allegations connect
Dillon or Settersten to that practice or provide a reason for
either to have been aware of it.
Based upon the complaint's allegations, the plausible, nonculpable
explanation is that Ulta was focused on reducing shrink and set
employees' compensation, in part, based on shrink reduction that
had the unintended effect of incentivizing retail store employees
and their managers to resell used products. The inference urged by
the Plaintiffs that Dillon and Settersten either knew or were
recklessly unaware of this practice is not as compelling. Thus, the
complaint does not plead a "strong inference" under the PSLRA.
With respect to Dillon and Settersten, the most cogent explanation
for Ulta's alleged conduct is that the resale of used product was
an unfortunate and unintentional byproduct of Ulta's focus on
reducing shrink, not fully known to the executives who were
responsible for publishing the allegedly false or misleading
statements. The complaint does not allege a strong inference of
Ulta's scienter.
II. Violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act (Count II)
"Section 20(a) of the Act 15 U.S.C. Section 78t provides a basis
for holding individuals liable for acts of securities fraud if they
control other individuals or businesses that violate the securities
laws." To state a claim under Section 20(a), a plaintiff must first
adequately plead a primary violation of securities laws -- in the
case, a violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5."
Because the complaint does not state a claim against Dillon,
Settersten, or Ulta for violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5,
the complaint also does not state a claim under Section 20(a).
III. Conclusion
The motion to dismiss is granted, the complaint is dismissed
without prejudice, and the Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an
amended complaint by May 2, 2022. The Defendants' request for
judicial notice is granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8mfap9 from
Leagle.com.
UNION PLAZA: Fails to Properly Pay Cashiers, Martinez Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NORMA ANGELICA MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBERT CHOW, UNION PLAZA MARKET,
and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV11902 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 7, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and
California's Business and Professions Code including failure to
compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to pay wages when employment ends, failure to
pay wages owed every pay period, failure to maintain accurate
records, failure to give rest breaks, failure to give meal breaks,
failure to reimburse for business expenses, and unfair business
practices.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cashier from 2018
until June 28, 2021.
Union Plaza Market is a grocery store in Los Angeles, California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sevag Nigoghosian, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SEVAG NIGOGHOSIAN
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 956-1111
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Lopez Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS LOPEZ and BOBBY MORRISON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LLC
d/b/a ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES and ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY
SERVICES LLC, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:22-cv-01990
(E.D.N.Y., April 7, 2022) seeks to recover overtime pay under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs are former tour supervisors who performed work for
the Defendants pursuant to the Defendants' contracts with the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey at LaGuardia Airport (LGA).
Throughout the relevant time period, the Plaintiffs were not paid
regular and/or overtime wages for all hours worked each day.
Specifically, pursuant to Defendants' policy, the Plaintiffs were
not paid for pre-shift work performed during mandatory debrief
meetings and post-shift off-the-clock work. In addition, despite
being told by the Defendants' upper management that Plaintiffs were
entitled to a 30 minute meal break, Plaintiffs were not permitted
to take their meal breaks since there was no one to replace them or
cover their post for such breaks, says the suit.
Nonetheless, the Defendants automatically deducted 30 minutes for a
meal break for each work day regardless of whether Plaintiffs were
able to take a break during the workday.
In addition, since Plaintiffs' paystubs did not include time worked
during mandatory debrief meetings or off-the-clock work performed
at the end of their shift and automatically deducted meal breaks
they were not permitted to take, the wage statements that the
Plaintiffs received allegedly did not show an accurate accounting
of all hours that they worked during each workweek.
Allied Universal is an American provider of security systems and
services, janitorial services, and staffing.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
www.peltongraham.com
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 385-9700
VERIDIAN HEALTHCARE: Rodriguez Files Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Veridian Healthcare
LLC. The case is styled as Adriana Rodriguez, individually on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Veridian
Healthcare LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02989 (S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Veridian Healthcare -- https://www.veridianhealthcare.com/ --
offers over 50 years of combined management and sales experience
supporting the healthcare industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Phone: (845) 483-7100
Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
VIRGINIA COMMUNITY: Moore Wins Leave to Amend ERISA Class Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANICE A. MOORE, on behalf of herself and a class of
all similarly situated participants in the Virginia Community
Bankshares, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Plaintiff v.
VIRGINIA COMMUNITY BANKSHARES, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 3:19-cv-00045 (W.D. Va.), Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia,
Charlottesville Division, granted Moore's Motion to Amend her
Complaint.
I. Background
The putative class action suit arises from the Defendants' alleged
improprieties administering an Employee Stock Ownership Plan
("ESOP"). Defendant Virginia Community Bankshares, Inc. ("the
Holding Company") sponsored the ESOP, which was offered to
employees of Defendant Virginia Community Bank, Inc. ("VCB"),
including Plaintiff Moore and other members of the proposed
Plaintiff class. The ESOP was governed by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1001 et seq.
Plaintiff Moore filed her original complaint on Aug. 12, 2019,
naming the following Defendants: A. Pierce Stone, John A. Hodge,
and H.B. Sedwick III (together, "the Trustee Defendants") and
Ronald Spicer, the Holding Company, and VCB. Compl. 1-2. Stone,
Hodge, Sedwick, Spicer, the Holding Company, and VCB are the six
"Original Defendants" to the putative class action.
Plaintiff Moore's Original Complaint asserted one count for breach
of fiduciary duty under ERISA and one count for engaging in
prohibited transactions under ERISA. She alleged that the Original
Defendants engaged in a series of "prohibited transactions" under
ERISA from 2006 until 2008.
First, the Original Defendants intentionally withheld information
from Howe Barnes Hoefer & Arnett, Inc., an investment bank that the
Original Defendants retained to perform a valuation of the Holding
Company in 2006, to obtain a fraudulently inflated valuation. The
Original Defendants allegedly then caused the ESOP to repurchase
Holding Company stock at the inflated valuation using ESOP
contribution funds to finance cash distributions to Defendants
Stone and Spicer through non-exempt loans issued in 2007 and 2008.
The Original Defendants personally benefited from the loans at the
expense of ESOP participants, including Plaintiff Moore and the
other putative Plaintiff class members, by creating annual debt
payments for ESOP participants that continued until the ESOP's
termination in 2016. The Original Defendants allegedly later
covered up the inflated valuation and the 2007 and 2008 loans,
disclosing "inaccurate information" on filings with the Department
of Labor and Internal Revenue Service. Lastly, the Original
Defendants allegedly intimidated or disciplined employees for
raising concerns about the ESOP.
In September 2019, the Original Defendants moved to dismiss the
Original Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, primarily arguing that Plaintiff Moore's claims
were time-barred. In June 2020, the Honorable Glen E. Conrad,
presiding, denied the motion to dismiss and allowed Plaintiff
Moore's claims to proceed. The case is currently in "Phase I" of
the parties' agreed-upon bifurcated discovery schedule, and has not
been set for trial before the Honorable Norman K. Moon, presiding.
Plaintiff Moore moved for leave to amend her complaint in August
2021. Her proposed two-count amended complaint ("Amended
Complaint") (sealed) (redacted), largely reiterates the allegations
from her Original Complaint. She no longer asserts, however, that
the Defendant Stone personally benefited from the inflated 2007
valuation. The Amended Complaint seeks to substitute Blue Ridge
Bankshares, Inc., and Blue Ridge Bank, N.A., as successor entities
through merger to Defendants the Holding Company and VCB,
respectively. Alleged events and transactions related to the Blue
Ridge-VCB merger, which was finalized in December 2019, feature
prominently in the Amended Complaint's proposed changes. The
Amended Complaint also seeks to add Thomas Crowder, Andrew
Holzwarth, A. Preston Moore, Mark Sisk (the "Director Defendants"),
and Amy Schick as defendants. The Trustee Defendants (Stone, Hodge,
Sedwick) and Defendant Spicer are still named as defendants to
Counts I and II.
Plaintiff Moore also adds to her Amended Complaint new allegations
against all original and proposed Defendants relating to the 2016
termination of the ESOP and subsequent merger with Blue Ridge.
Specifically, she alleges that "the Holding Company Board met and
approved a termination of the ESOP effective Dec. 31, 2016."
Sometime before that meeting, Defendant Moore had hired consulting
firm ESOP Services, Inc. to advise the Holding Company and VCB on
its ESOP termination procedures. Upon ESOP Services, Inc.'s
recommendation, Michael N. Mulkey was engaged as an independent
trustee for purposes of the ESOP termination.
The Amended Complaint, as with the Original Complaint, alleges one
count against all the Defendants for breach of ERISA fiduciary
duties, and a second count against all the Defendants for engaging
in prohibited transactions under ERISA.
Count I more specifically alleges that Defendants Stone, Hodge, and
Sedwick (the "Trustee Defendants"): (i) failed to follow procedures
necessary to determine the fair market value of Holding Company
Stock distributed from and sold to the ESOP, (ii) caused the ESOP
to pay more than adequate consideration for the repurchase of
Holding Company Stock, (iii) failed to discharge their duties with
respect to the ESOP solely in the interest of the Plan participants
and for the exclusive purpose providing benefits to such
participants, and (iv) engaged in self-dealing to enrich themselves
at the expense of ESOP participants. It further alleges that the
Trustee Defendants "had a fiduciary duty to ensure that any
transactions between the Holding Company and/or VCB were fair and
reasonable, and to ensure that the ESOP paid no more than fair
market value for Holding Company Stock," and they breached those
fiduciary duties by (a) intentionally concealing material financial
information regarding the condition of the Holding Company for the
purpose of establishing an inflated price for their ESOP
transactions in 2007 and 2008; (b) knowingly and fraudulently
causing the ESOP to repurchase Holding Company Stock at inflated
prices; (c) actively concealing their fraud and ERISA violations by
various means; and (d) approving ESOP loans to finance the
acquisition of Holding Company's Stock that unnecessarily saddled
the ESOP participants with debt.
Count I further alleges that those Defendants serving as Directors
and/or Officers of the Holding Company or VCB "breached their ERISA
fiduciary duties by (a) approving ESOP transactions for the purpose
of profiting from such transactions at the expense of the ESOP
participants; and (b) unnecessarily saddling the ESOP participants
with debt that decimated their retirement benefits." Lastly, Count
I alleges that all "Defendants entered into numerous ESOP
transactions after 2008, including without limitation in 2018, in
connection with the termination of the ESOP, the final
distributions of Stock and cash therefrom, and the sale of Stock
held by the ESOP to themselves at a fraudulently low purchase
price" in violation of their fiduciary duties under ERISA.
Count II alleges that all the "Defendants entered into numerous
ESOP transactions in 2007 and 2008 that were prohibited
transactions under ERISA, including multiple Stock repurchase
transactions at prices that exceeded adequate consideration and
non-exempt loan transactions." It further alleges that any
compensation received by the Holding Company, VCB, or the
individual defendants in connection with the 2007 and 2008 loans
was a prohibited transaction that was "ongoing from 2007 through
2016, when the final contribution was made to the ESOP to retire
the Loans." Lastly, Count II alleges that all "Defendants entered
into numerous ESOP transactions prohibited under ERISA after 2008,
including without limitation in 2018, in connection with the
termination of the ESOP, the final distributions of Stock and cash
therefrom, and the sale of Stock held by the ESOP to themselves at
a fraudulently low price."
Plaintiff Moore moved to amend her putative class-action complaint
in August 2021. The Defendants oppose the motion on three grounds.
First, the Defendants contend that leave to amend is futile because
Plaintiff Moore raises "no plausible allegations" that Defendant
Sedwick, Defendant Schick, or any of the Director Defendants
(Crowder, Holzworth, Sisk, and Moore) "acted as a fiduciary under
ERISA with respect to Plaintiff Moore's new claims." Next, the
Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint fails to satisfy Rule
8's pleading standard because of Plaintiff Moore's undifferentiated
allegations against the "Defendants." Lastly, the Defendants assert
that the amendments would be "plainly prejudicial" at this stage in
the litigation.
II. Discussion
A. Fiduciary Capacity of the Director Defendants, Defendant Sedwick
& Defendant Schick
The Defendants first argue that Plaintiff Moore failed to allege
facts supporting a reasonable inference that Defendant Sedwick,
Defendant Schick, and the Director Defendants (Crowder, Holzworth,
Sisk, and Moore) acted in a fiduciary capacity with respect to the
new claims.
Judge Hoppe finds that the well-pleaded factual allegations in the
Amended Complaint, accepted as true and viewed in Plaintiff Moore's
favor, support a reasonable inference that Defendant Sedwick,
Defendant Schick, and the Director Defendants each acted as an
ERISA fiduciary. The allegations make it plausible that each
Director Defendant exercised some 'discretionary authority or
control' over the Plan, whether formally or informally." The
factual allegations against Defendant Sedwick similarly support a
reasonable inference that he acted as an ERISA fiduciary with
respect to the ESOP. The factual allegations allow the Court to
draw a reasonable inference that Defendant Sedwick, and the other
trustees, acted as ERISA fiduciaries with respect to the plan.
Likewise, the facts describing Defendant Schick's alleged
responsibilities and conduct support a reasonable inference that
she was an ERISA fiduciary with respect to the ESOP administration
and termination.
Accordingly, Judge Hoppe finds that the Plaintiff Moore has pled
facts, accepted as true and viewed in her favor, supporting a
reasonable inference that the Defendant Sedwick, Defendant Schick,
and the Director Defendants (Crowder, Holzworth, Sisk, and Moore)
each acted as ERISA fiduciaries with respect to the ESOP under the
liberal standard applicable at this stage in the case.
B. Undifferentiated Pleading of "Defendants"
The Defendants next argue that Plaintiff Moore has failed to allege
facts with the requisite level of specificity, as she often
attributes certain actions to "the Defendants" generally, rather
than specifying which th Defendant(s) is alleged to have been
involved in what conduct. In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Moore
identifies the positions held by each individual Defendant, as well
as the years during which they held those positions.
Judge Hoppe opines that the allegations, by way of example, do not
merely state "labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action." Rather, these well-pleaded
factual allegations, combined with identification of the positions
each defendant held and the period he or she held such positions,
sufficiently apprise the Defendants of the actions each individual
defendant is alleged to have taken and the claims Plaintiff Moore
asserts. A few isolated instances of generally pleading that the
"Defendants" took certain actions, while perhaps wanting in
clarity, does not unfairly impact the Defendants' ability to
discern the actions each is alleged to have taken and the claims
asserted against them. Accordingly, Judge Hoppe finds that the
Amended Complaint complies with the pleading requirements of Rule
8(a).
C. Prejudice
The Defendants next argue that permitting amendment at this stage
in the litigation would be "plainly prejudicial." They contend that
Plaintiff Moore unduly delayed in moving to amend her pleading
despite learning of these new allegations over a year prior to
filing the instant motion to amend. The Defendants also assert that
having to defend these new allegations against new defendants at
this stage in the litigation would force the six Original
Defendants "to incur tens of thousands of dollars in additional
costs to re-review a significant portion of previously reviewed
documents, gather new documents from additional custodians, and
review those new documents for responsiveness and privilege based
on completely new claims unrelated to those in the original
complaint."
These arguments are not persuasive, Judge Hoppe opines. He says,
the circumstances do not suggest that Plaintiff Moore unreasonably
delayed filing the motion. The delay was reasonable to allow
Plaintiff Moore time to obtain information that her counsel
believed would provide sufficient corroboration to support the
motion for leave to amend. Also, no prejudice would result from
allowing the proposed amendments. Moreover, the case has not been
formally certified as a class action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c), and is
yet to be scheduled for trial. Accordingly, Judge Hoppe finds that
granting leave to amend would not be prejudicial at this stage in
the case.
D. Rule 20(a)
The Defendants do not raise any objections to their being joined as
parties to the action under Rule 20(a), and Judge Hoppe finds that
the additional defendants are properly joined consistent with the
Rule's "transaction or occurrence" test. He says, among other
things, each of Plaintiff Moore's claims involves a common
overarching theme -- namely, the Defendants mismanagement of the
ESOP in violation of ERISA. The allegations and claims assert
breaches of fiduciary duties and a series of prohibited
transactions by the Defendants at various points ranging from 2006
until at least 2019 that collectively resulted in the decimation of
ESOP participants' retirement funds. Thus, the claims "arise out of
the same series of transactions or occurrences." Further, forcing
Plaintiff Moore to bring these claims in a separate action would
run afoul of Rule 20's "purpose of expediting 'final determination
of disputes, thereby preventing multiple lawsuits.'" Accordingly,
Judge Hoppe finds that the new defendants are properly joined under
Rule 20(a)(2).
III. Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hoppe granted the Plaintiff's
Motion to Amend. The proposed Amended Complaint is now the
operative complaint.
The Clerk is directed to file under seal the proposed Amended
Complaint, as the Amended Complaint. Additionally, the Clerk is
directed to file on the public docket the redacted proposed Amended
Complaint. The Plaintiff will serve the Amended Complaint on any
new Defendants. The existing Defendants and any new Defendants will
respond to the Amended Complaint within the times allowed under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Clerk will deliver a copy of the Memorandum Opinion & Order to
the parties.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/42znfcpb from
Leagle.com.
WALGREEN CO: Calixte Sues Over Deceptive Advertising of Gift Cards
------------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUES CALIXTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREEN CO., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-01855 (N.D. Ill., April 9, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust
enrichment, breach of contract, breaches of express warranty,
implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular
purpose and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
State Consumer Fraud Acts.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising and representation of its
gift cards or stored-value cards. The Defendant failed to disclose
to consumers that: (a) it did not take adequate and reasonable
measure to ensure third parties did not tamper with the gift cards
it sold; (b) it did not utilize additional security measures such
as sending an email or other secure communication to the purchaser
with activation instructions; (c) it failed to warn of the
probability and/or possibility that the gift cards it sold had been
or could be tampered with or compromised by third parties; (d) its
gift card policies and security practices were inadequate to
safeguard gift cards against theft; and (e) it failed to adequately
train and require its employees to carefully and consistently
inspect gift cards prior to sale for evidence of tampering. As a
result of the Defendant's alleged false and misleading
representations, its gift cards are sold at a premium price,
excluding tax and sales, higher than similar stored-value cards.
Walgreen Co. is an operator of a pharmacy store chain in the United
States, with its principal place of business in Deerfield, Lake
County, Illinois. [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
WALGREENS MAIL: Wilkerson Seeks to Certify CCR Employee Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andrea Wilkerson,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
v. Walgreens Mail Service, LLC d/b/a AllianceRX Walgreens Prime and
Healthcare Support Staffing, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01427-JAT (D.
Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
conditional certification of the following Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) Class:
"All current and former Call Center Representative employees,
and/or other job titles performing the same or similar job
duties, who worked for Defendants and/or each of them, at any
time in the last three years, while working at Walgreens Mail
Service, LLC."
AllianceRx is a joint venture between one of the largest retail
drugstores, Walgreens, and pharmacy benefit manager Prime
Therapeutics that provides pharmacy services to consumers.
AllianceRx operates customer service call centers in Arizona,
Texas, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Healthcare Staffing specializes in labor staffing for the health
care industry, including customer service representatives for
pharmacies and pharmacy benefit managers.
The Plaintiff and the Class for certain boot-up work requiring
employees to boot up and log in to their work computers. In
connection with this Motion, Named-Plaintiff Wilkerson's and Opt-in
Plaintiff Rone's Declarations confirm Defendant AllianceRx's pay
practices as pleaded in the Second Amended Complaint. Taken
collectively, Defendant AllianceRx's pay practices are consistently
applied to Plaintiff and the Class.
Andrea Wilkerson is a resident of Phoenix, Arizona, who was placed
by Defendant Healthcare Staffing to work for Defendant AllianceRx
from September 2020 to May 2021. Wilkerson worked in Arizona as a
remote Call Center Representative performing the same or similar
job duties as all CCRs, which included answering inbound calls from
customers regarding prescriptions, helping clients with their
online profiles, verifying patient information, performing data
entry, and resolving other customer issues.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 25,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ma09wt
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard P. Traulsen, Esq.
BEGAM MARKS & TRAULSEN, P.A.
11201 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 110
Phoenix, AZ 85028-6037
Telephone: (602) 254-6071
E-mail: rtraulsen@BMT-law.com
WALMART INC: Russell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walmart, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Deborah Russell, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Walmart, Inc., Does 1 through 50,
Case No. CGC22599066 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April
11, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints (Complaint
For Minimum Wage)."
Walmart Inc. -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- is an American
multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from
the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Gallo, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. GALLO
12702 Via Cortina, Suite 500
Del Mar, CA 92014-3798
Phone: 858-509-3652
Fax: 858-509-3717
[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Be A Speaker
------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Showcase your firm's expertise on a panel in front of class action
attorneys, general counsel, litigation financiers, consultants,
claims administrators, reporters and academics.
For the most complete agenda and to register: visit:
www.classactionconference.com
Interested in being a sponsor, contact:
Bernard Toliver, CMP
Tel: (240) 629-3300 ext. 149
E-mail: bernard@beardgroup.com
For more conference information, or to register, 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 ***