/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220512.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, May 12, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 89
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over Hazardous Chemical Waste
3M COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over Water Contamination
3M COMPANY: Faces Hazardous Chemical Waste Exposure Suit
3M COMPANY: Faces Hazardous Chemical Waste Exposure Suit
3M COMPANY: Suit Over Hazardous Chemical Exposure Pending
3M COMPANY: Suit Over Improper Disposal of Chemical Waste Pending
7-ELEVEN INC: Hess Sues Over Illegal Biometric Data Retention
A3H FOODS: Centeno-Rrodriguez Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ward Alleges
ALPHA TRANSPORTS: Fails to Pay Wages After Kronos Hack, Suit Says
AMAZON.COM INC: Denies Employment Benefits, Mahone USERRA Suit Says
AMAZON.COM INC: Fitzl Sues Over Mislabeled Non-Drowsy Products
AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Parras Suit Removed to N.D. California
ASCENSION HEALTH: Fails to Pay Wages After Kronos Hack, Suit Says
BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Trade Practices
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Underpays Insurance Benefits, Pregozen Suit Says
BYRD COOKIE: Reply to Ortega Class Action Complaint Due on May 16
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay OT Wages After Kronos Hack
COLONIAL STAFFING: Brooke Dean Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA: German Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
D'ARTAGNAN INC: Harris Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NJWHL, WPL
DA AFGHANISTAN BANK: S.D. New York Dismisses Wodensheck Class Suit
DIALAMERICA MARKETING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Moure Says
DVL EXPRESS: Class of Delivery Drivers Certified in Tsybikov Suit
FCA US: Faces Beeney Suit Over Unlawful Phantom Freight Charges
FCA US: Faces Lindsey Suit Over Inflation of Destination Charges
FILIPPO VICARI: Ordonez Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Mallozzi Sues Over Share Price Drop
JANET LLC: Christa Hinds Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, MFWSA
JEFF'S HOME: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Power Suit Alleges
JUUL LABS: Woodland Public Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
LENNOX INDUSTRIES: Tyrone Dorn Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & AMWA
MDL 1570: Bid to Appear Pro Hac Vice in 9/11 Attacks Suit Denied
META PLATFORMS: Cook Sues Over Copyright Infringement
NETFLIX INC: Faces Pirani Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
NOBLE ENERGY: Colorado Court Tosses Boulter Suit Without Prejudice
NOMI HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Poole Suit Alleges
ONE MEDICAL: Etri Sues Over Deceptive Annual Membership Fees
OPORTUN INC: Faces Falcon Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
PASA PARCEL: Davis Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
PJ FAST: Courtney Seeks Minimum Wages for Drivers Under FLSA
RAGUBOY CORP: Gonzalez Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NYLL
REDBUBBLE INC: Faces Wallster Suit Over Copyright Infringement
SALSAS OF TITUSVILLE: Paz Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
SHARED IMAGING: Court Can't Approve Class Settlement in Ranger Suit
SKYWEST AIRLINES: Stockbridge Sues Over Flight Crew's Unpaid Wages
UNITED SERVICES: Court Refuses to Stay Discovery in Advanced Suit
UNITED STATES: Officer May File 2nd Amended Complaint v. Air Force
VERTIV HOLDINGS: Faces Riviera Beach Suit Over Stock Price Drop
WEST COAST: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Garcia Says
*********
3M COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over Hazardous Chemical Waste
----------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2022, that in Delaware, 3M, together with
several co-defendants, is defending one putative class action
brought by individuals alleging polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
contamination of their water supply resulting from the operations
of local metal plating facilities.
Plaintiffs allege that 3M supplied PFAS to the metal plating
facilities. DuPont, Chemours, and the metal platers have also been
named as defendants. This case has been removed from state court to
federal court, and plaintiffs have withdrawn its motion to remand
to state court and filed an amended complaint. 3M has filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In February 2021, the
court raised the question whether subject matter jurisdiction under
the Class Action Fairness Act was proper, issued an order requiring
the parties to brief the issue and denied defendants' motions to
dismiss with leave to renew pending the court's ruling on
jurisdiction. An oral argument was held in September 2021. In
December 2021, the court issued an order retaining jurisdiction
over the case and 3M renewed its previous motion to dismiss, which
remains pending.
The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments
and apparatus based in St. Paul MN.
3M COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over Water Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2022, that the company, together with
co-defendants, is also defending a putative class action in federal
court in Georgia, in which plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of a
class of individual ratepayers in Summerville, Georgia who allege
their water supply was contaminated by polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS) discharged from a textile mill.
In May 2021, the City of Summerville filed a motion to intervene in
the lawsuit, which was granted in March 2022. 3M's motion to
dismiss the case was denied in March 2022. This case remains in
early stages of litigation.
The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments
and apparatus based in St. Paul MN.
3M COMPANY: Faces Hazardous Chemical Waste Exposure Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2022, that in March 2022, a putative class
action was filed in the Northern District of Alabama on behalf of
ratepayers of the City of Guin Water Works and Sewer Board (Guin
WWSB).
Defendants include 3M, the Guin landfill, the Guin WWSB, and some
waste transporters. The plaintiffs allege that their water supply
has been contaminated with polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which
has caused them property damage and unspecified damage to health
interests.
The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments
and apparatus based in St. Paul MN.
3M COMPANY: Faces Hazardous Chemical Waste Exposure Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2022, that in South Carolina, a putative
class action lawsuit was filed in South Carolina state court
against 3M, DuPont and DuPont related entities in March 2022.
The lawsuit alleges property damage and personal injuries from
contamination from polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds used
and disposed of at the textile plant known as the Galey & Lord
plant from 1966 until 2016. The complaint seeks remedies including
damages, punitive damages, and medical monitoring.
The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments
and apparatus based in St. Paul MN.
3M COMPANY: Suit Over Hazardous Chemical Exposure Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2022, that a case originally filed in
Georgia state court was brought by individuals asserting
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination by the Georgia
carpet manufacturers and seeking economic damages and injunctive
relief on behalf of a putative class of Rome and Floyd County water
subscribers.
This case has been removed to federal court, where 3M filed a
motion to dismiss a series of amended complaints, resulting in the
dismissal of plaintiffs' negligence claim against 3M. This case is
proceeding through discovery.
The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments
and apparatus based in St. Paul MN.
3M COMPANY: Suit Over Improper Disposal of Chemical Waste Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2022, that in Michigan, one consolidated
putative class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Michigan against 3M and Wolverine World Wide
(Wolverine).
The action arises from Wolverine's allegedly improper disposal of
materials and wastes, including 3M Scotchgard, related to
Wolverine's shoe manufacturing operations. Plaintiffs allege
Wolverine used 3M Scotchgard in its manufacturing process and that
chemicals from 3M's product contaminated the environment and
drinking water sources after disposal. In June 2021, the court
partially denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, by granting
the motions to dismiss the negligence claim only insofar as the
plaintiffs seek damages for personal injuries, as opposed to
property damage.
In September 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the
complaint, including to add four new named plaintiffs and putative
class representatives. 3M and Wolverine filed a motion to strike
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and opposed
plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint. The court has set a
trial date in June 2022.
The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments
and apparatus based in St. Paul MN.
7-ELEVEN INC: Hess Sues Over Illegal Biometric Data Retention
--------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN HESS, CAROLYN JOHNSON, THOMAS MCKEE, AND BARBARA MOSS, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. 7-ELEVEN, INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02131 (N.D. Ill.,
April 25, 2022) seeks damages and other legal and equitable
remedies resulting from the alleged illegal actions of 7-Eleven in
collecting, storing, and using Plaintiffs' and other similarly
situated individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric
information without obtaining informed written consent or providing
consumers with data retention and destruction policies, in
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to comply with its
duties under Illinois law and invaded Plaintiffs' and the Class'
privacy through the unauthorized collection, retention, and use of
Plaintiffs' biometric data.
The Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of Illinois who visited
7-Eleven stores.
7-Eleven, Inc. is an American multinational chain of retail
convenience stores, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
E-mail: ahoneycutt@milberg.com
- and -
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
E-mail: katrina@lcllp.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
923 Fayette St.
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 234-6487
Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
A3H FOODS: Centeno-Rrodriguez Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTELA CENTENO-RODRIGUEZ, ANGELICA MANCERA Individually and on
Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. A3H FOODS, LP., d/b/a
Jack in The Box, Case No. 4:22-cv-01413 (S.D. Tex., May 3, 2022) is
a collective action complaint brought to obtain relief on behalf of
a class of individuals who and related work for the Defendant, to
recover unpaid overtime wages, lost wages, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendant owns and operates Jack in the Box restaurants.
Defendant employs Plaintiffs, and would-be Plaintiffs, to prepare
food, work as cashiers, conduct inventory, and provide Plaintiff's
Original Complaint customer service to clients at their
restaurant.
The FLSA collective group consists of all individuals who
operate(d) as cooks, cashiers, or food processors for Defendant and
who are, or were, classified as employees working for the Defendant
at any time during the applicable limitations period.
This action challenges both the classification of cooks/cashiers
and Defendant's denial to Plaintiffs, and the Class, of the rights,
obligations, privileges, and benefits owed to them as
employees.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
Eddie Hodges, Jr., Esq.
KENNARD LAW PC
5120 Woodway Dr., Suite 10010
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 742-0900
Facsimile: (832) 558-9412
E-mail: Alfonso.Kennard@kennardlaw.com
Eddie.Hodges@kennardlaw.com
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ward Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
NADIA WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02316 (N.D., Ill., May 3, 2022) alleges that the
Defendant fails to pay wages, and proper overtime for all hours
worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Ac.
Plaintiff Ward was employed by the Defendant as staff.
THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION provides property-liability insurance as
well as other types of insurance. [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
- and -
Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
55 E. Monroe St., Ste. 3800
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (313) 739-1951
Facsimile: (313) 739-1976
Email: mhanna@forthepeople.com
ALPHA TRANSPORTS: Fails to Pay Wages After Kronos Hack, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEANETTE JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALPHA TRANSPORTS, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01704 (E.D.
Pa., May 3, 2022) alleges that Alpha Transports failed to pay
wages, including agreed wages and proper overtime in violation of
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
and Collection Law, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Jones brings this lawsuit to recover these unpaid overtime wages
and other damages owed by Alpha Transports to her and Alpha
Transports' other non-overtime-exempt workers, who were the
ultimate victims of not just the Kronos hack, but Alpha Transports'
decision to make its own non-exempt employees workers bear the
economic burden for the hack.
Like many other companies across the United States, Alpha
Transports' timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the
hack of Kronos in 2021. That hack led to problems in timekeeping
and payroll throughout Alpha Transports' organization.
As a result, Alpha Transports' workers who were not exempt from
overtime under federal and state law were not paid for all hours
worked and/or were not paid their proper overtime premium for all
overtime hours worked after the onset of the Kronos hack, says the
suit.
Jeanette Jones is one such Alpha Transports worker. Alpha
Transports could have easily implemented a system to accurately
record time and properly pay non-exempt hourly and salaried
employees until issues related to the hack were resolved. But it
didn’t. Instead, Alpha Transports used prior pay periods or
reduced payroll estimates to avoid paying wages and proper overtime
to these non-exempt hourly and salaried employees.
Alpha Transports pushed the cost of the Kronos hack onto the most
economically vulnerable people in its workforce. Alpha Transports
made the economic burden of the Kronos hack fall on front-line
workers—average Americans—who rely on the full and timely
payment of their wages to make ends meet.
Alpha Transports is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Angeli Murthy, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Rd., Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 327-5369
Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
AMAZON.COM INC: Denies Employment Benefits, Mahone USERRA Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
YASMINE MAHONE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:22-cv-00594 (W.D. Wash., May 4, 2022) is a civil class action
brought pursuant to the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA).
The complaint is brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of a nationwide
Class of all persons similarly situated, including current and
former employees of Amazon.com, Inc., who were or are currently
serving in the United States Armed Services or National Guard.
Allegedly, Amazon knowingly and willfully violated USERRA by
discriminating against the Plaintiff and the Class members, and by
denying them employment benefits "on the basis of" their
"obligation to perform service in a uniformed service."
As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Amazon, as set
forth in this count, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered
injuries and damages including but not limited to loss of past and
future benefits, all to his damage in an amount to be proven at
trial.
The Plaintiff was employed by Amazon from July 16, 2020 until she
was terminated on October 18, 2020. At all times relevant, the
Plaintiff worked for Amazon in Bessemer, Alabama.
From October 16 through 18, 2020, Plaintiff was performing military
service obligations, also known as a "drill weekend." This drill
weekend was a three-day period and required the Plaintiff's
attendance from approximately 7:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. each day.
Prior to the October drill weekend, the Plaintiff timely notified
Amazon of her impending military service obligations and took
military leave without pay ("LWOP") from Thursday, October 15
through Sunday, October 18.
Amazon employees used a mobile phone application ("app") called
"AtoZ" to, monitor their schedules, view documents such as
timesheets, paystubs, etc., and input various human resources
inquires such as requests for time off, or in Plaintiff's case the
notification of her military service obligations.
Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company which
focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, and
artificial intelligence. It has been referred to as "one of the
most influential economic and cultural forces in the world", and is
one of the world's most valuable brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Kalish, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
600 Stewart Street, Suite 901
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 826-5354
E-mail: dkalish@hkm.com
- and -
Brian J. Lawler, Esq.
PILOT LAW, P.C.
850 Beech Street, Suite 713
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 255-2398
E-mail: blawler@pilotlawcorp.com
- and -
Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
STONEBARGER LAW, APC
101 Parkshore Dr., Suite 100
Folsom, CA 95630
Telephone: (916) 235-7140
E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
- and -
Kevin L. Wilson, Esq.
KEVIN WILSON LAW PLLC
3110 Horton Avenue
Louisville, KY 40220
Telephone: (502) 354-3330
E-mail: kevin@kwilsonlaw.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Fitzl Sues Over Mislabeled Non-Drowsy Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN FITZL and SAMANTHA HORTON, on behalf of themselves and a
class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00544 (W.D. Wash., April 22,
2022) is a class action against Defendant regarding the
manufacture, distribution, and sale of Amazon's Basic Care-branded
"Non-Drowsy" over-the-counter cold and flu medicines that contain
Dextromethorphan Hydrobromide.
According to the complaint, the non-drowsy products state
prominently on the front of their labels that they are "Non-Drowsy"
and "Daytime" products. By prominently labeling the products as
such, the Defendant led Plaintiffs and other consumers to believe
that the non-drowsy products do not cause drowsiness, and that
drowsiness is not a side effect of the products.
However, one of the active ingredients in the non-drowsy products
is Dextromethorphan Hydrobromide. While the average consumer may
not be aware, drowsiness is a documented side effect of the
ingredient at dosages recommended by Defendant in respect to the
non-drowsy products. Authorities such as the National Library of
Medicine and Mayo Clinic list drowsiness as a side effect of this
ingredient, says the suit.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves
and the Class for equitable relief and to recover damages and
restitution for: (i) breach of express warranty; (ii) violations of
the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (iii) violations of
the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (iv) unjust enrichment; (v)
negligent misrepresentation; and (vi) intentional
misrepresentation.
Plaintiff Fitzl purchased a Basic Care Vapor Ice Daytime and
Nighttime Severe Cold and Flu combo pack from Amazon.com on January
26, 2022 while Plaintiff Horton purchased a Basic Care Daytime
Severe and Nighttime Severe Cold and Flu combo pack on September
13, 2021.
Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company
which focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming,
and artificial intelligence.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ralph Glenn Phillips, Esq.
Douglas Weinmaster, Esq.
PHILLIPS LAW FIRM
17410 133rd Avenue NE, Suite 301
Woodinville, WA 98072
Telephone: (425) 482-1111
Facsimile: (425) 482-6653
E-mail: Glenn@Justiceforyou.com
Dweinmaster@justiceforyou.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
cmaccarone@zlk.com
AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Parras Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Edwin Parras, Robert Parras, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Financial
Resources, Inc., Case No. 22CV009276 was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on May 3, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-02659 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Contract
Dispute.
American Financial Resources -- https://www.afrcorp.com/ -- offers
a diverse group of mortgage loan and financing options for
correspondents, brokers, and credit unions.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Teresa Carey Chow, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Phone: (310) 820-8800
Fax: (310) 820-8859
Email: tchow@bakerlaw.com
ASCENSION HEALTH: Fails to Pay Wages After Kronos Hack, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KERCHAI LeFLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ASCENSION HEALTH ALLIANCE d/b/a ASCENSION and ASCENSION
HEALTH d/b/a ASCENSION, Case No. 4:22-cv-00496v (E.D. Mo., May 4,
2022) alleges that Ascension failed to pay wages, including proper
overtime for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act.
LeFlor brings this lawsuit to recover these unpaid overtime wages
and other damages owed by Ascension to her and Ascension's other
non-overtime-exempt workers, who were the ultimate victims of not
just the Kronos hack, but Ascension's decision to make its
own non-exempt employees workers bear the economic burden for the
hack.
Like many other companies across the United States, Ascension
Health Alliance and Ascension Health's (together, "Ascension")
timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos
in 2021.
That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout
Ascension's organization. As a result, Ascension's workers who were
not exempt from overtime under federal and state law were not paid
for all hours worked and/or were not paid their proper overtime
premium on time, if at all, for all overtime hours worked after the
onset of the Kronos hack, says the suit.
Ascension could have easily implemented a system to accurately
record time and properly pay non-exempt hourly and salaried
employees until issues related to the hack were resolved. But it
didn't. Instead, Ascension pushed the cost of the Kronos hack onto
the most economically vulnerable people in its workforce.
Ascension made the economic burden of the Kronos hack fall on
front-line workers -- average Americans -- who rely on the full and
timely payment of their wages to make ends meet.
After significant delay, Ascension made payment of some of these
outstanding wages. However, portions of these earned wages remain
unpaid.
LeFlor has worked for Ascension since before December 2021. LeFlor
represents at least two groups of similarly situated Ascension
workers.
LeFlor represents a collective of similarly situated workers under
the FLSA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
This "FLSA Collective" is defined as:
"All current or former non-exempt employees of Ascension
(including its subsidiaries and alter egos), who worked in the
United States at any time since the onset of the Kronos
ransomware attack, on or about December 11, 2021, to the
present."
LeFlor represents a class of similarly situated workers under
Michigan law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. This
"Michigan Class" is defined as:
"All current or former non-exempt employees of Ascension (including
its subsidiaries and alter egos) who worked in Michigan at any
time
since the onset of the Kronos ransomware attack, on or about
December 11, 2021, to the present."
Ascension operates medical facilities throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone (713) 999 5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Trade Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Y.H, by and through her Guardian NATHAN HARRIS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. BLIZZARD
ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
30-2022-01257732-CU-BT-CXC-ROA (Cal., Super., Orange Cty., May 3,
2022) is an action against the Defendant's unlawful, deceptive, and
misleading trade practices in its popular video games.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's unfair,
deceptive, and unlawful practices of allowing players, including,
minors, to pay real-world currency to gamble on winning in-game
items, as well as refusing to provide refunds to minors who made
in-game purchases, deceive, mislead, and harm consumers, especially
minor children who comprise a large segment of the Defendant's
player population.
The Plaintiff and other consumers have been injured as a result of
the Defendant's practices, including, but not limited to, having
suffered out-of-pocket loss.
BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. develops and publish online video game
software. The Company offers novels, comics, manga, board,
pen-and-paper role-playing, and basic card games. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 893-7002
Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
Email: eturin@mcgpc.com
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Underpays Insurance Benefits, Pregozen Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
NEIL PREGOZEN, Executor of the Estate of David Pregozen, Deceased
v. BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
3:22-cv-00197-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C., May 4, 2022) is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging that
the Defendant routinely underpays long-term care insurance benefits
owed due to a known "glitch" in Defendant's claims management
software.
The Defendant's long-term care policies provide different benefit
types subject to different benefit caps. Two such benefits are
Benefits for Nonconfined Care, which are subject to a daily maximum
benefit amount, and Benefits for Care Coordination, which are
subject to an annual maximum benefit amount.
However, due to a "glitch" in Defendant's claim processing
software, when Coordinated Care invoices are entered into
Defendant's claims processing system before Nonconfined Care
invoices are entered for a given day, the system inappropriately
applies the Coordinated Care invoices towards the Nonconfined Care
benefit's Daily Benefit Amount. When that happens, the
policyholder's Daily Benefit Amount is reached prematurely and
claims for subsequently entered invoices for Nonconfined Care are
wrongfully denied, the suit alleges.
As a result of the "glitch," Defendant has underpaid thousands of
dollars of benefits due under Plaintiff's father's policy alone.
The Defendant has known of the "glitch" since at least December
2020, when one of Defendant's claims specialists identified it as
the cause of certain underpayments of benefits owed under
Plaintiff's father's long-term care policy. Yet Defendant has
failed to fix the glitch, fully pay Plaintiff all monies owed due
to the glitch, and Defendant willfully and knowingly continues to
underpay long term care benefits owed, the suit added.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norris A. Adams, II, Esq.
ESSEX RICHARDS, P.A.
1701 South Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28203
Telephone: (704) 377-4300
Facsimile: (704) 372-1357
E-mail: nadams@essexrichards.com
- and -
Sean K. Collins, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SEAN K. COLLINS
184 High Street, Suite 503
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (855) 693-9256
Facsimile: (617) 227-2843
E-mail: sean@neinsurancelaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45249
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
tnaylor@gs-legal.com
BYRD COOKIE: Reply to Ortega Class Action Complaint Due on May 16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUAN ORTEGA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BYRD COOKIE COMPANY, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 22 Civ. 1811 (PAE) (SLC) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate
Judge Sarah L. Cave of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York gave the Defendant until May 16, 2022, to
timely respond to the class action complaint.
On March 25, 2022, Defendant Byrd, through Stephine Lindley, was
served copies of the Summons in a Civil Action, Civil Cover Sheet,
and Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 and New York City And New York City Human
Rights Law. On being served a summons, the Defendant had 21 days to
file an answer. Accordingly, it had until April 15, 2022 to timely
respond to the complaint. To date, the Defendant has failed to
respond to the complaint.
The Defendant will have until May 16, 2022 to timely respond. Its
failure to timely respond to the Complaint may result in the entry
of a Certificate of Default.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5cnacuet from Leagle.com.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay OT Wages After Kronos Hack
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. d/b/a SPECTRUM, Case No.
3:22-cv-00584 (D. Conn., April 25, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's failure to pay Charter's workers who
non-overtime-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law for all hours worked after the onset of the Kronos
attack.
According to the complaint, Charter's timekeeping and payroll
systems were affected by the hack of Kronos in 2021, like many
other companies across the United States. That hack led to problems
in timekeeping and payroll throughout Charter's organization.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit to recover the unpaid overtime
wages and other damages owed by the Defendant to her and other
non-overtime-exempt workers, who were the ultimate victims of not
just the Kronos hack, but Charter's decision to make its own
non-exempt employees workers bear the economic burden for the
hack.
Ms. Hernandez has worked for Charter since February 2021.
Charter Communications, Inc., d/b/a Spectrum, is an American
telecommunications and mass media company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC
750 Main Street, Suite 904
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 522-8888
E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
- and -
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
COLONIAL STAFFING: Brooke Dean Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
BROOKE DEAN, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v.
COLONIAL STAFFING GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-10663 (D. Mass.,
May 3, 2022) alleges Colonial Staffing failed to pay Brooke Dean
(Dean) and other workers like her, overtime as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Allegedly, Colonial paid Dean and other workers like her, the same
hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40
in a workweek ("straight time for overtime").
Dean brings this lawsuit to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages owed under the FLSA. During the relevant period, Dean was
an hourly employee of Colonial. Throughout his employment with
Colonial, Dean was paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked
(including those hours in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek)
with no overtime compensation.
Dean brings this Action on behalf of herself and other similarly
situated workers who were paid by Colonial's "straight time for
overtime" compensation scheme.
Colonial staffs workers to the energy industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Gordon, Esq.
Kristen M. Hurley, Esq.
GORDON LAW GROUP, LLP
585 Boylston St.
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 536-1800
Facsimile: (617) 536-1802
E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com
khurley@gordonllp.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH , PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA: German Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHABRINA GERMAN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA/COLORADO/
FLORIDA/OREGON INC. D/B/A XFINITY, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-22-005884 (Fla. Cir., 17th Jud., Broward Cty., April 22, 2022)
arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act.
The Defendant allegedly sent electronic communication to Plaintiff
in connection with the collection of a consumer debt. The
electronic communication was sent to Plaintiff between the hours of
9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. in the time zone of Plaintiff. The
Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to communicate with
Plaintiff between the said hours. As such, by and through the
electronic communications, Defendant violated FCCPA, asserts the
complaint.
The consumer debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to
pay money arising from a transaction between the creditor of the
consumer debt, Defendant, and Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is the
alleged debtor of the consumer debt.
COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA/COLORADO/FLORIDA/OREGON INC. d/b/a XFINITY
was founded in 1996. The company's line of business includes
providing two-way radiotelephone communication services such as
cellular telephone services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
D'ARTAGNAN INC: Harris Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NJWHL, WPL
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO HARRIS, individually, and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. D'ARTAGNAN, INC., ARIANE DAGUIN, in her
individual and professional capacities, and ANDY WERTHEIM, in his
individual and professional capacities, Case No. 2:22-cv-02620
(D.N.J., May 4, 2022) seeks recovery against the Defendants for
their violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey
State Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, the
retaliation provisions of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act
and the common law right to be free from retaliation for exercising
rights protected by a clear mandate of public policy.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against the Defendants to recover
damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, sustained by him as
a result of Defendants' unlawful practice of failing to pay
overtime compensation to the Plaintiff, and for retaliatory
actions
taken against Plaintiff after he made complaints to Defendants
about his right to recover unpaid overtime compensation.
The Plaintiff also brings this lawsuit against Defendants as a
collective action, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated non-exempt delivery persons/truck drivers, for damages as
a result of Defendants' violations of the FLSA pursuant to the
collective action provisions of 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
During the relevant time period, Defendants allegedly engaged in a
policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and putative class
members to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week, without
providing overtime compensation as required by applicable Federal
and New Jersey state law.
The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery person/truck driver for
the Defendants, delivering the food ordered by D'Artagnan's
customers, starting on or about August 1, 2019. The Plaintiff was
paid $21.85 per hour for all hours worked in a work week. The
Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 14 hours per day, sometimes
working from 2 am to as late as 4 pm. By the time Plaintiff would
get home, he would only be able to get a few hours sleep before he
had to get up to go to work again, the lawsuit says.
During his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff contends that
he made numerous complaints to the Defendants about his unpaid
overtime, to no avail. On July 11, 2021, he was terminated from his
employment for complaining about not being paid overtime, the
Plaintiff adds.
D'Artagnan is a food seller and manufacturer of beef, pork, lamb,
veal, pâtés, sausages, smoked and cured charcuterie, all-natural
and organic poultry, game, free-range meat, foie gras, wild
mushrooms and truffles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cindy D. Salvo, Esq.
THE SALVO LAW FIRM, PC
CINDY D. SALVO
185 Fairfield Avenue, Suite 3C/3D
West Caldwell, NJ 07006
Telephone: (973) 226-2220
Facsimile: (973) 900-8800
E-mail: csalvo@salvolawfirm.com
DA AFGHANISTAN BANK: S.D. New York Dismisses Wodensheck Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George B. Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed the case, IN RE: APPROXIMATELY $3.5
BILLION OF ASSETS ON DEPOSIT AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW
YORK IN THE NAME OF DA AFGHANISTAN BANK, Case No. 22 CIV 03228
(GBD) (SN) (S.D.N.Y.).
Judge Daniels' Order relates to In re Terrorist Attacks on
September 11, 2001, No. 03-md-1570 (GBD) (SN). Plaintiffs The
Estate of Christopher Wodenshek, Anne Wodenshek, Sarah Wodenshek,
Haley Wodenshek, Mollie Wodenshek, William Wodenshek, and Zachary
Wodenshek (the "Wodensheck Plaintiffs") in the MDL captioned
action, Ashton, et al. v. Al Qaeda Islamic, et al., Case No.
02-cv-6977, attempt to bring the separate proposed class action
"seeking the equitable distribution" of funds currently deposited
"at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the name of Da
Afghanistan Bank (DAB")."
The Wodensheck Plaintiffs seek a class certification of "all
persons and/or estates with compensatory damages claim against the
Taliban on file in a U.S. court of record as of April 20, 2022."
The complaint also sought an injunction "enjoining any judgment
enforcement proceeding in any court affecting the DAB Assets
pending adjudication of the Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint."
Judge Daniels finds the Complaint improper and dismissed it. He
says, the purported class action complaint was clearly duplicative
no matter how the Plaintiffs dress up the claims. The Wodensheck
Plaintiffs acknowledge that they are part of the MDL. They are in
fact members of the MDL member case Ashton, Case No. 02-cv-6977, in
which they have obtained liability judgments and have pending
proposed final default judgments. Their separate class action
complaint is wholly about the "equitable distribution" of the DAB
assets, including their damages in the Ashton case. The DAB assets
are at issue in current turnover proceedings in the MDL. The
turnover proceedings are consistent with President Biden's
executive order and accompanying statement retaining 3.5 billion
dollars of DAB Assets in the United States subject to ongoing
litigation by U.S, victims of terror.
Nothing about the proposed class action suit brings new claims that
cannot be heard in the related MDL. Since a Plaintiff cannot
maintain duplicate actions, the class action complaint is
dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case
accordingly.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5bk45xbp from Leagle.com.
DIALAMERICA MARKETING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Moure Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEN MOURE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. DIALAMERICA MARKETING, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00625-OAW
(May 3, 2022) arises out of the recent data breach involving
DialAmerica, a for-profit call center outsourcing services company
headquartered in Mahwah, New Jersey.
DialAmerica allegedly failed to reasonably secure, monitor, and
maintain Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") provided by
current and former employees, including, without limitation, full
names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and employee assigned
identification numbers of individuals stored on its private
network.
Indeed, after learning of the Data Breach, the Defendant waited
nearly nine months to notify Plaintiff and Class Members of the
Data Breach and/or inform them that their PII was compromised.
During this time, Plaintiff and Class Members were unaware that
their sensitive PII had been compromised, and that they were, and
continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various
other forms of personal, social, and financial harm, says the
suit.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant's
conduct in breaching these duties amounts to negligence and/or
recklessness and violates federal and state statutes.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII
was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to take
reasonable steps to protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members
and warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate
information security practices. The Defendant disregarded the
rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by knowingly failing to
implement and maintain adequate and reasonable measures to ensure
that the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was safeguarded,
failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized
disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required, and
appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the
encryption of data, even for internal use.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's data security
failures and the Data Breach, the PII of Plaintiff and Class
Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and
unauthorized third party, and Plaintiff and Class Members have
suffered actual, present, concrete injuries.
The Plaintiff received a "Notice of Security" letter, dated April
6, 2021, on or about that date. The letter notified Plaintiff that
on July 4, 2021, DialAmerica identified unusual activity on its
network. Additionally, the letter stated that DialAmerica commenced
an investigation that determined between February 2, 2021 and July
9, 2021, an unauthorized actor gained access to certain DialAmerica
systems and the actor may have viewed and taken data from those
systems.
DialAmerica is a telemarketing and call center outsourcing service
provider headquartered at 960 MacArthur Boulevard, Mahwah, New
Jersey.[BN]
DVL EXPRESS: Class of Delivery Drivers Certified in Tsybikov Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AYUR TSYBIKOV and IRINA DUDCHENKO, Plaintiffs v.
OLEKSANDR DOVGAL, ALINA KIM, DVL EXPRESS, INC., and ALTEX
LOGISTICS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 19 C 3334 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Harry D. Leinenweber of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.
I. Introduction
The lawsuit is a putative class action brought by two delivery
drivers against Defendants DVL and Altex. The basis of their claim
is that DVL and Altex misclassified them as independent contractors
when they were actually employees entitled to the protection of the
Illinois Wage Payment and Compensation Act (the "IWPCA"). As a
result of this misclassification, they suffered unlawful deductions
from their pay and were required to pay business expenses that were
properly those of the Defendants. They now move for class
certification pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23 under Count I of their
Second Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class: All
delivery drivers who performed deliveries for DVL Express, Inc.,
and/or Altex Logistics, Inc., between 2011 and the present and were
classified as independent contractors.
II. Background
DVL and Altex are owned by Defendants Oleksandr Dovgal and Alina
Kim respectively. The Plaintiffs, Auyur Tsybikov and Irina
Dudchenko, were employed by the Defendants as delivery drivers.
Tsybikov worked for Defendants between August 2014 and August 2017.
Dudchenko worked for Defendants in February and March 2020. The two
companies are closely intertwined; Kim had regular involvement in
the operation of DVL, and Altex regularly hauls loads for DVL and
vice versa. Kim routinely gave delivery assignments and
communicated safety regulations and new policy instructions to
delivery drivers, including the Plaintiffs. The two companies share
dispatchers, recruiters, and safety managers. They use identical
forms for dealing with their delivery drivers. DVL and Altex haul
freight for various customers such as Wal-Mart, Whole Foods,
Robinson, Glen Star and Coyote.
The Plaintiffs and the other delivery drivers were required to pass
background checks and drug tests in order to work for the
Defendants. Prior to starting work for the Defendants, they were
required to attend orientation sessions during which they were
instructed about logbook requirements, safety regulations, and
truck loading procedures. Drivers who violated safety instructions
were penalized financially. Drivers were required to drive a
minimum of 3,000 miles per week and were required to work full time
and up to 70 hours per week. The trucks they drove had the
Defendants' logos on them. They were not allowed to work for any
other trucking company.
The Plaintiffs and other drivers received their delivery
assignments from the Defendants' dispatchers and were required to
check in when picking up and dropping off freight loads, as well as
periodically while on the road. They were required to submit weekly
reports showing the deliveries they made. The Defendants generated
weekly statements listing payments made to the drivers and
deductions that were taken from the driver's pay. Deductions
included payments for accidents, safety violations, and escrow
payments. In addition, drivers were required to pay for drug tests,
cell phone plans, and GPS systems. On the basis of these facts, the
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on Sept. 9,2021.
On Sept. 24, 2021, the Defendants responded in opposition to the
motion. They contend that the Plaintiffs and the other delivery
drivers were independent contractors because they each had either
written or oral contracts with them which stated that they were
independent contractors. The Defendants also contend that these
contracts authorized them to deduct these expenses and amercements
from the drivers' pay. Since the deductions from pay is the
Plaintiffs' main complaint, the Defendants argue the claims of the
proposed class claims will turn on individual issues. Also, the
Defendants contend that many of the drivers do not have IWCPA
standing because they perform most of their driving duties outside
of the state of Illinois.
The Plaintiffs replied on Oct. 15, 2021, arguing (1) the existence
of individual damage claims does not prevent a class action on the
issue of liability, (2) that IWPCA applies to all the class
members, and (3) that differences between the various contracts
does not prevent class consideration of a charge of
misclassification.
The Court now decides the motion.
III. Discussion
Judge Leinenweber addresses each of the Defendants arguments in
turn. He opines that the initial problem with the Defendants' main
argument, i.e., that the drivers had individual oral or written
contracts, is that it assumes that the Defendants did not misclass
the Plaintiffs. This is not an issue at class certification; it is
the main issue of law in the case. If the Plaintiffs (and class
members) have an independent contractor status with the Defendants,
the Plaintiffs will probably lose. However, the issue is an open
one prior to trial or summary judgment. As the Seventh Circuit held
in Schleicher v. Wendt, 618 F.3d 679, 685 (7th Cir.2010),
certification is largely independent of the merits.
Whether the Plaintiffs are employees or independent contractors is
one of Illinois law, specifically the IWPCA which has established a
three-prong test to answer the question. The test is in the
conjunctive so that to establish that a driver is an independent
contractor rather than an employee, the employer must show the
following three conditions are met: The worker is an individual:
(1) who has been and will continue to be free from control and
direction over the performance of his work, both under his contract
and in fact; and(2) who performs work which is either outside the
usual course of business or is performed outside all of the places
of business of the employer; and(3) who is in an independently
established trade, occupation, profession or business.
According to the Plaintiffs' evidence, the Defendants fail on all
three of the prongs. The evidence submitted shows that the
Defendants controlled and directed the performance of their
drivers' work, the drivers did at least some of their work at their
place of business (picking up loads), and the Defendants' business
was trucking which is the trade in which the Plaintiffs were
engaged.
Judge Leinenweber next reviews the Plaintiffs' standing to obtain
the applicability of the IWPCA, which the Defendants deny, and
their argument being that the vast majority are not Illinois
residents and that the drivers did the majority of their driving
outside Illinois. The current Illinois Department of Labor
regulation and the Illinois Court's interpretation of the statute
and regulation have held that "both the plain language of the
statute and the recently amended administrative regulations of the
Illinois Department of Labor place no limitation on the amount of
work that an Illinois employee must perform within the state so as
avail himself of the Wage Act's protections," citing Watts v. ADDO
Mgmt., L.L.C., 97 N.E.3d 75, 80 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018) (citing 38
Ill. Reg. 18517 (Aug. 22, 2014)). Watts forecloses the Defendants'
standing argument, Judge Leinenweber opines.
Turning to the class issues, Judge Leinenweber explains that to
obtain class certification, the proposed class must satisfy the
requirements of Rule 23(a), Numerosity, Commonality, Typicality,
and Adequacy, as well as one of the alternatives in Rule 23(b), in
this case, Predominance.
He says, the Numerosity prong is clearly met because the Defendants
have stated that approximately 721 individuals provided deliveries
during the relevant time period. Each Plaintiff also is a driver
working for the Defendants and is subject to the same contention
that he is an independent contractor and not subject to the
protection of the IWCPA. Thus, typicality is satisfied.
As to Commonality, Judge Leinenweber says the common issue in the
case is whether the Plaintiffs are employees or independent
contractors under the IWPCA. Having done so, they have established
commonality.
The final Rule 23(a) requirement is adequacy. This includes both
adequacy of the Plaintiffs as representatives of the absent class
members and their attorneys as competent representatives. The
Defendants do not question adequacy, so Judge Leinenweber will not
question it either.
The final prong for establishment of a class is the predominance
requirement of Rule 23(b). Predominance is similar to commonality,
but more stringent. The question is whether the proposed class is
sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.
The Defendants argue that each potential class member will involve
different expenses of which at least some will have been
authorized. Thus, the case will require each class member to be
subjected to a separate trial on this issue.
This is not a major problem, however, because the IWPCA requires a
written agreement for expenses, says Judge Leinenweber. He holds
that those which have been agreed to in writing will not be
compensated. However according to the Plaintiffs, many of the
expenses were disclosed to them by e-mail while on the road and
thus were not in writing and evidence of them no longer exists. In
either case, this objection will not pose a major problem. He
therefore finds predominance to exist.
IV. Conclusion
Judge Leinenweber concludes that the whole thrust of the
Defendants' argument against class certification is that each
Plaintiff and each class member started work under a separate
contract, some written and some oral. Therefore, there are a
multitude of different contracts, some of which are oral. Thus,
each claimant is different so that there can be no commonality,
typicality, or predominance. The fallacy is that this fact is
largely irrelevant because the issue in the class action is whether
under the Defendants' trucking business management and operating
procedures, a driver could opt out of IWPCA coverage by entering
into a contract with Defendants. That is the issue, and it is
common to the class.
Judge Leinenweber finds that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)
are met and he declares a class consisting of: All delivery drivers
who performed deliveries for DVL Express, Inc., and/or Altex
Logistics, Inc., between 2011 and the present and were classified
as independent contractors.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7496tuf from
Leagle.com.
FCA US: Faces Beeney Suit Over Unlawful Phantom Freight Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
PERRY BEENEY, WENDY BEENEY, NATHAN BENEFIELD, TREVOR COLE, ROBERT
COLLINGWOOD, GARY DUTKOWSKI, BILLY E. ROWLES JR., and DARELL
UPSHAW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. FCA US, LLC, and STELLANTIS N.V., Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00518-UNA (D. Del., April 22, 2022) is a class action
lawsuit brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves other
purchasers of new, model-year 2018 and later Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge,
Ram, Fiat and Maserati-brand vehicles distributed for sale in the
United States by FCA, asserting claims at common law and for
violations of various state consumer protection statutes.
The U.S. Congress highlighted practices in the automotive industry
that were harming consumers back in the 1950s. It identified, in
particular, the problem of "phantom freight" -- a cost that had
been charged by companies like Chrysler (now FCA) and Ford in
connection with the sale of new vehicles. Phantom freight referred
to artificially inflating the purported cost of transporting
vehicles to dealerships for sale to consumers. Auto manufacturers
used that inflated cost to unfairly derive additional revenues that
they could not have generated by simply raising the vehicles' sales
price.
Pursuant to the Automobile Information Disclosure Act, which took
effect in January 1959, companies like FCA are required to place a
label -- often referred to as a "Monroney Sticker" -- on the window
of each new vehicle before making it available for sale. The
Monroney Sticker lists, among other things, a destination charge,
which one Congressman described as the "plain honest-to-goodness
figure" that reflects the cost of delivering the vehicle to a
dealership for sale. In the midst of congressional scrutiny into
phantom freight, Ford and Chrysler publicly announced they were
giving up the practice.
The Plaintiffs and proposed class members bought new Class Vehicles
and allegedly incurred the phantom freight costs that FCA now
systematically charges. Neither Defendants, nor any of their
dealers or other representatives informed Plaintiffs, during or
after purchase, of the fact that the destination charges contained
phantom freight, says the suit.
As a direct and proximate result, and as a producing cause, of
FCA's business practices, Plaintiff and Class members suffered
economic damages, because they purchased more Class Vehicles than
they otherwise would have and paid prices they would not otherwise
have paid, the suit added.
FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans,
trucks and commercial vans, as well as distributes automotive
service parts and accessories. FCA US serve clients in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ian Connor Bifferato, Esq.
THE BIFFERATO FIRM
1007 N Orange Street, 4th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 429-0907
E-mail: cbifferato@tbf.legal
- and -
William H. Anderson, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
4730 Table Mesa Drive Suite G-200
Boulder, CO 80305
Telephone: (303) 800-9109
E-mail: wanderson@hajustice.com
- and -
Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
David Stein, Esq.
Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
505 14th Street, Suite 1110
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com
ds@classlawgroup.com
kjg@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Rebecca P. Chang, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
33 Irving Street
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (347) 480-1030
Facsimile: (844) 300-1952
E-mail: rchang@hfajustice.com
- and -
Jon M. Herskowitz, Esq.
BARON & HERSKOWITZ
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1704
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 670-0101
Facsimile: (305) 670-2393
E-mail: jon@bhfloridalaw.com
FCA US: Faces Lindsey Suit Over Inflation of Destination Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER LINDSEY and BCR CARPENTRY LLC, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. FCA US, LLC, and STELLANTIS
N.V., Case No. 2:22-cv-02637 (D.N.J., May 4, 2022) is a class
action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other purchasers of
new, model-year 2018 and later Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, Ram, Fiat,
and Maserati-brand vehicles distributed for sale in the United
States by FCA (Class Vehicles).
According to the complaint, FCA received money that was intended to
be used for the benefit of Plaintiffs and the Class. In particular,
FCA charges destination charges for Class Vehicles and thereby
derives money intended to benefit Plaintiffs and Class members by
paying for the cost of delivering Class Vehicles to dealerships for
sale.
FCA failed to use the money for the benefit of Plaintiffs and Class
members. As alleged, rather than charging destination charges to
pay for the true cost of delivery, FCA has inflated the destination
charges in order to generate additional profit for itself, which it
has not spent for the benefit of Plaintiffs and the Class.
Back in the 1950s, Congress highlighted practices in the automotive
industry that were harming consumers. Congress identified, in
particular, the problem of "phantom freight" – a cost that had
been charged by companies like Chrysler (now FCA) and Ford in
connection with the sale of new vehicles. Phantom freight referred
to artificially inflating the purported cost of transporting
vehicles to dealerships for sale to consumers. Auto manufacturers
used that inflated cost to unfairly derive additional revenues that
they could not have generated by simply raising the vehicles' sales
price.
The Plaintiff purchased a new 2020 Ram 1500 Classic Tradesman on or
about March 29, 2021, from Dodge Chrysler Jeep City, an authorized
Dodge dealer and repair center located in Burlington, New Jersey.
The Plaintiff paid a total purchase price of $42,625. When
Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, Plaintiff viewed the
Monroney Label affixed to the window. The Plaintiff referenced the
document, for the feature and pricing information it contained.
FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells
vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG &
AFANADOR, LLC
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 623-3000
Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
bgreenberg@litedepalma.com
- and -
William H. Anderson, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
4730 Table Mesa Drive, Suite G-200
Boulder, CO 80305
Telephone: (303) 800-9109
E-mail: wanderson@hajustice.com
- and -
Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
David Stein, Esq.
Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com
ds@classlawgroup.com
kjg@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Rebecca P. Chang, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
33 Irving Street
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (347) 480-1030
Facsimile: (844) 300-1952
E-mail: rchang@hfajustice.com
- and -
Jon M. Herskowitz, Esq.
BARON & HERSKOWITZ
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1704
Miami, Fl. 33156
Telephone: (305) 670-0101
Facsimile: (305) 670-2393
E-mail: jon@bhfloridalaw.com
FILIPPO VICARI: Ordonez Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL ORDONEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FILIPPO VICARI CONSTRUCTION INC., FILIPPO DANIEL
VICARI, ENRICO VICARI and ALEXANDRO VICARI, as individuals, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02543 (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022) seeks to recover damages
for the Defendants' egregious violations of state and federal wage
and hour laws arising out of the Plaintiff’s employment with the
Defendants' business located at 6525 79th St., Middle Village, New
York, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.
As a result of the violations of Federal and New York State labor
laws delineated below, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and
liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000.00. The
Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all
other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate,
says the suit.
Although Plaintiffs regularly worked 60-72 hours per week during
the relevant statutory period, the Defendants allegedly did not pay
Plaintiffs at a wage rate of time and a half for their hours
regularly worked over 40 in a work week, a blatant violation of the
overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Mallozzi Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL V. MALLOZZI, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES,
INC., PAUL SMITHERS, CATHERINE HASTINGS, and ANDY BUI, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02359 (D.N.J., April 25, 2022) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Innovative
Industrial Properties securities between May 7, 2020 and April 13,
2022, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Company's registration statements
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class
Period were materially false and/or misleading because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects,
which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Innovative Industrial
Properties’ focus is to be a cannabis company lender rather than
a REIT; (2) that the true values of Innovative Industrial
Properties' properties are significantly lower than Innovative
Industrial Properties represents; (3) existential issues in its top
customers; (4) that as a result, its top customers may not be able
to continue making payments to Innovative Industrial Properties and
Innovative Industrial Properties would face significant issues
replacing these customers; and (5) that as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $13.76 per share, or
7.5%, to close at $169.68 per share on April 14, 2022, on unusually
heavy trading volume, damaging investors.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. is an American real estate
investment trust company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 313-1887
Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
JANET LLC: Christa Hinds Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, MFWSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Christa Hinds Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Janet, LLC and Nicholas Keyes, Jr., Case No.
3:22-cv-00115-MJN-CHG (S.D. Ohio, May 4, 2022) arises under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Constitution and the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act for Defendants' failure to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all earned minimum
wages and overtime wages.
The Defendants own and/or operate Flanagan's Pub located in Dayton,
Ohio. The Defendants employed a common policy and practice whereby
Plaintiff and the members of the Classes were required to regularly
work for the benefit of the Defendants while their hours were not
being properly paid, classified, or recorded.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the members of the
Classes are entitled to the applicable minimum wage for all hours
worked and overtime for hours over 40 in an individual work week.
The Defendants have a policy or practice of paying their tipped
employees at Flanagan's Pub sub-minimum hourly wages under the
tip-credit provisions of the FLSA ("Tip-Credit Employees").
The Defendants paid Plaintiff at a subminimum tip-credit wage to
work as a server at Defendants' Flanagan's Pub. The Plaintiff Hinds
worked as a server at Defendants' Flanagan's Pub in Dayton, Ohio in
February, 2021.
The Plaintiff does not recall Defendants informing her of the
tip-credit provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
While paying her at the sub-minimum, tip-credit wage, Defendants
required Plaintiff to spend over 20 percent of her work time in one
or more individual workweeks performing required duties where she
did not interact with customers and could not earn a tip, including
but not limited to opening and closing, sweeping, sanitizing,
cleaning bathrooms, washing windows, and taking out trash, the
Plaintiff contends.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
5000 Rockside Road
Liberty Plaza -- Suite 520
Independence, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 525-8890
E-mail: james@bswages.com
JEFF'S HOME: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Power Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
JACK POWERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JEFF'S HOME IMPROVEMENTS, LLC, d/b/a JEFF'S
HOME SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00715-CAB (N.D., Ohio,
May 3, 2022) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay
the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Powers was employed by the Defendant as delivery driver.
JEFF'S HOME IMPROVEMENTS, LLC, d/b/a JEFF'S HOME SERVICES full
service home improvement contractor. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Simon, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
5000 Rockside Road
Liberty Plaza Building - Suite 520
Independence, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 525-8890
Facsimile: (216) 642-5814
Email: james@bswages.com
- and -
Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
P.O. Box 97066
Phoenix, AZ 85060
Telephone: (480) 382-5176
Email: cliff@bswages.com
JUUL LABS: Woodland Public Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT #404, 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-02685-WHO (N.D. Cal., May 4, 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.
Woodland Public Schools District #404 is a unified school district
with its offices located at 800 3rd Street in Woodland,
Washington.
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
LENNOX INDUSTRIES: Tyrone Dorn Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & AMWA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TYRONE DORN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. LENNOX INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00073-KGB
(E.D. Ark., May 3, 2022) is a collective action brought by the
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against Defendant for violations of the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the overtime
provisions of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable
attorney's fee and costs as a result of Defendant's policy and
practice of failing to pay proper overtime compensation under the
FLSA and the AMWA.
The Plaintiff brings this claim for relief for violation of the
FLSA as a collective action pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA,
29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of all persons similarly
situated as hourly employees who were, are, or will be employed by
Defendant within the applicable statute of limitations period.
Lennox is a provider of climate control products for the heating,
ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration markets. Lennox
also includes the Heatcraft Refrigeration and Armstrong
brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick Wilson, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: patrick@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
MDL 1570: Bid to Appear Pro Hac Vice in 9/11 Attacks Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, Case
No. 03 MDL 1570 (GBD) (SN) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge George B. Daniels of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied the motion to appear pro hac vice.
Judge Daniels' Order relates to In re Approximately $3.5 Billion of
Assets on Deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the
Name of Da Afghanistan Bank, No. 22-cv-03228 (GBD) (SN).
Given the dismissal of the class action complaint in In re
Approximately $3.5 Billion of Assets, Case No. 22-cv-03228, the
motion to appear pro hac vice is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4cs4nxhd from Leagle.com.
META PLATFORMS: Cook Sues Over Copyright Infringement
-----------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER L. COOK, d/b/a JL Cook, JL Cook Sculptor and
SNAKEARTS.COM, and other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. META
PLATFORMS, INC., f/k/a FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-02485-JCS (N.D. Cal., April 22, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's conduct of publishing and displaying millions of
copyright infringing images every single day in violation of the
Copyright Act of the United States, Visual Artists' Rights Act,
Lanham Act, Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and the Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The complaint is brought by the Plaintiff stemming from Facebook's
use of stolen images for ad revenue and direct infringement of
Plaintiff's and the Class' exclusive right to display and
distribute Registered Works and Facebook's participation, and
contributions to the advertising and sale of creative works and
products that constitute inferior knockoff duplications of
copyrighted and protected products.
Allegedly, Facebook directly participates in Counterfeit ad
approval and publication through the Facebook Ad Platform approval
process, which includes scanning ads for things like discrimination
and design issues.
Plaintiff JL Cook is and at all relevant times was a resident of
the State of Florida. She is an artist and engages in the
development and sale of artistic and unique representations of
reptiles. JL Cook does business as "JL Cook," "JL Cook Sculptor,"
and "SNAKEARTS." She registered two of her works, the "Python" and
the "Matched Pair Rattlesnake Entrance Sculptures" (collectively
"Plaintiff's Registered Works") with the U.S. Copyright Office. The
U.S. Copyright Office issued certificates for Plaintiff's
Registered Works that establish Jennifer Cook as the prima facie
copyright owner.
Meta Platforms, Inc., doing business as Meta and formerly known as
Facebook, Inc., and TheFacebook, Inc., is an American multinational
technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arielle M. Canepa, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (877) 500-8780
Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
E-mail: arielle.canepa@zimmreed.com
- and -
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Rachel K. Tack, Esq.
Michael J. Laird, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
- and -
Jonathan L. Hardt, Esq.
James F. McDonough, Esq.
ROZIER HARDT MCDONOUGH PLLC
712 W. 14th Street Suite C
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (210) 289-7541
NETFLIX INC: Faces Pirani Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
FIYYAZ PIRANI, as TRUSTEE OF IMPERIUM IRREVOCABLE TRUST,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
NETFLIX, INC., REED HASTINGS, TED SARANDOS, and SPENCER NEUMANN,
Case No. 3:22-cv-02672 (N.D. Cal., May 3, 2022) is a class action
on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Netflix common stock or call options, or sold put options,
between October 19, 2021 and April 19, 2022, inclusive, pursuing
claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
On January 20, 2022, after the market closed, Netflix reported that
it "slightly over-forecasted paid net adds in Q4," adding 8.3
million subscribers compared to the 8.5 million forecast. The
Company also stated that, despite "healthy" retention and
engagement, it only expected to add 2.5 million net subscribers
during first quarter 2022, below the 4.0 million net adds in the
prior year period.
On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $110.75, or 21.7%,
to close at $397.50 per share on January 21, 2022, on unusually
heavy trading volume, says the suit.
On April 19, 2022, after the market closed, Netflix reported that
it lost 200,000 subscribers during the first quarter of 2022,
compared to prior guidance expecting the Company to add 2.5 million
net subscribers. The Company cited the slowing revenue growth to
four factors, including account sharing with an estimated 100
million additional households and competition with other streaming
services.
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $122.42, or over
35%, to close at $226.19 per share on April 20, 2022, on unusually
heavy trading volume.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to
disclose to investors that Netflix was exhibiting slower
acquisition growth due to, among other things, account sharing by
customers and increased competition from other streaming services.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered 17
significant losses and damages.
The Plaintiff purchased Netflix securities during the Class Period,
and suffered damages as a result of the alleged federal securities
law violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or
material omissions.
Netflix primarily operates an entertainment platform that offers TV
series, documentaries, feature films, and mobile games across a
variety of genres and languages. It also offers a DVD-by-mail
service in the U.S. The Individual Defendants are officers of the
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
clinehan@glancylaw.com
prajesh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
NOBLE ENERGY: Colorado Court Tosses Boulter Suit Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIKE BOULTER, BOULTER, LLC, RALPH NIX PRODUCE, INC.,
and BARCLAY FARMS, LLC, on behalf of themselves and classes of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. NOBLE ENERGY, INC., and
KERR-McGEE OIL & GAS ONSHORE, LP, Defendants, Civil Action No.
21-cv-03500-RM-SKC (D. Colo.), Judge Raymond P. Moore of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado granted the Defendants'
Joint Motion to Dismiss.
Before the Court is the Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss,
seeking dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
The Plaintiffs concede that that their previously dismissed
complaint in Case No. 21-cv-01346-RM-KLM ("Boulter II") contained
allegations substantially identical to the claims alleged in their
current Class Action Complaint. The claims and allegations in
Boulter II were in turn substantially identical to those asserted
in Case No. 21-cv-00861-WJM-KLM ("Boulter I").
In Boulter I, U.S. District Judge William J. Martinez dismissed the
Plaintiffs' claims based on alleged untimely royalty payments
because Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies
before the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ("COGCC").
As a matter of law, the COGCC must determine in the first instance
whether a claimant seeking such royalty payments has shown a bona
fide dispute of contract interpretation that takes the matter out
of the COGCC's exclusive jurisdiction.
Contrary to the Plaintiffs' arguments, Judge Moore holds that the
1998 amendments to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act did
not end the COGCC's exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute. "The
1998 amendments do not evidence a change in the legislature's
intent regarding the primacy of the COGCC's jurisdiction over
disputes like this one." "To allow parallel judicial proceedings on
these same issues, rather than giving the COGCC the first
opportunity to decide them, would go against the legislative intent
revealed by the Act's declaration, language, and administrative
processes."
In Boulter II, the Court declined to allow the Plaintiffs a second
bite at matters already determined by Judge Martinez.
Now, Judge Moore declines to allow the Plaintiffs a third bite
because their arguments are not new, and nothing of significance
has changed. In their Response, the Plaintiffs assert that they are
now in the process of exhausting their administrative remedies. But
that does not render the exhaustion requirement satisfied. Nor does
their contention that exhaustion will be futile. Once again, the
Plaintiffs have chosen to refile their case in the Court. Once
again, their efforts have found futility.
For the reasons he stated, Judge Moore granted the Defendants'
Joint Motion, dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice,
and the Clerk is directed to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/bdwhph5h from Leagle.com.
NOMI HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Poole Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
JOHNNY E. POOLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NOMI HEALTH, INC.; and MEDX STAFFING, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-CV-21383 (S.D. Fla., May 3, 2022) is an
action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.
Plaintiff Poole was employed by the Defendant as staff.
NOMI HEALTH, INC. is a foreign for-profit corporation that is
authorized to conduct its business in Florida and is sui juris.
NoMi Health has conducted its healthcare testing and treatment
business in numerous locations, including in this District, at all
times material. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
FAIRLAW FIRM
135 San Lorenzo Avenue
Suite 770
Coral Gables, FL 33146
Telephone: (305) 230-4884
Email: brian@fairlawattorney.com
ONE MEDICAL: Etri Sues Over Deceptive Annual Membership Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT ETRI, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ONE MEDICAL GROUP, INC, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-02504-JCS (N.D. Cal., April 25, 2022) is brought as a class
action on behalf of Plaintiff and thousands of similarly situated
One Medical customers who have been deceived into paying annual
membership fees (AMFs) in violation of the California's Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, the False Advertising Law, and the Unfair
Competition Law.
According to the complaint, One Medical represents to customers
that they must pay these AMFs in order to obtain any medical care
or services from One Medical when, in fact, payment of the AMFs is
entirely optional. Had Plaintiff and the Class members known the
AMFs were not required in order to receive medical services through
One Medical, they would not have paid them, says the suit.
Plaintiff Robert Etri is a citizen and resident of Miami-Dade
County, Florida. He was a One Medical member from 2017 to the
present. Believing it to be mandatory to receive care at a One
Medical facility, Plaintiff paid the $199 AMF in at least May
2020.
One Medical is a membership-based "concierge" medical practice with
at least 60 offices nationwide. Founded in 2007, One Medical added
80,000 new patients in 2015 and is currently valued at over $1
billion.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
OPORTUN INC: Faces Falcon Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
INDIRA FALCON, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OPORTUN INC., Defendant, Case Filing No.
148214358 (Fla. Cir., 17th Jud., Broward Cty., April 22, 2022)
arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act.
The Defendant allegedly sent electronic communication to Plaintiff
in connection with the collection of a consumer debt. The
electronic communication was sent to Plaintiff between the hours of
9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. in the time zone of Plaintiff. The
Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to communicate with
Plaintiff between the said hours. As such, by and through the
electronic communications, Defendant violated FCCPA, asserts the
complaint.
The consumer debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to
pay money arising from a transaction between the creditor of the
consumer debt, Defendant, and Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is the
alleged debtor of the consumer debt.
OPORTUN INC. is a financial services company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
PASA PARCEL: Davis Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PASA PARCEL, LLC and PATRICK BOONE,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00087 (S.D. Tex., April 22, 2022) is a
collective action seeking to recover overtime wages, liquidated
damages and all other applicable penalties brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff and Class members
their wages on time and as required by the federal law and
illegally retaliated against Davis by terminating his employment
after he asserted his rights under the FLSA.
Davis worked for the Defendants as a delivery driver in Corpus
Christi, Texas from December 2021 until February 2022.
The Defendants operate as a delivery service that is contracted
with Amazon to deliver products ordered from Amazon to the end
purchaser.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
lauren@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
PJ FAST: Courtney Seeks Minimum Wages for Drivers Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
LACHELLE COURTNEY, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. PJ FAST, LLC, PJ FAST ANNA, LLC, PJ FAST GREENVILLE,
LLC, PJ FAST LAKEWAY, LLC, PJ FAST PARIS, LLC, PJ FAST VICTORIA,
LLC, and PJ FAST LAWTON, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-01432 (S.D. Tex.,
May 4, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages owed to
Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by
Defendants at their Papa John's stores under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Defendants operate numerous Papa John's franchise stores. The
Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to
deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However,
instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably
approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the
Defendants used a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that neither reimburses the drivers for their actual expenses, nor
at the IRS business mileage rate which is legally required and a
reasonable approximation of those expenses, says the suit.
This under-reimbursement caused their wages to fall below the
federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks, the lawsuit
says.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately October
2019 to March 2020 as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Papa
John’s store located in Lawton, Oklahoma.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
Jolie N. Pavlos, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
P.O. Box 4979
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
JPavlos@forthepeople.com
RAGUBOY CORP: Gonzalez Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
LORENZO ALVAREZ GONZALEZ, JAVIER DIAZ PLAZA, and ERICK ALVAREZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
RAGUBOY CORP. d/b/a SUPPER RESTAURANT and FRANK PRISINZANO and ANIS
OUESLATI, as individuals, Case No. 1:22-cv-03607 (S.D.N.Y., May 4,
2022) seeks to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law arising out of Plaintiffs' employment with the Defendants
located at 156 E 2nd St., New York.
As a result of the alleged violations of Federal and New York State
labor laws, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated
damages in an amount exceeding $100,000.00. The Plaintiff also
seeks interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and all other legal and
equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate.
Although Plaintiff regularly worked 50 hours or more hours week
during their employment by the Defendants, the Defendants did not
pay the Plaintiffs at a wage rate of time and a half for his hours
regularly worked over 40 in a work week, a blatant violation of
the
overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, the suit
added.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
REDBUBBLE INC: Faces Wallster Suit Over Copyright Infringement
--------------------------------------------------------------
WALLSTER, INC., dba WALLSHOPPE; and NATHAN TURNER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
REDBUBBLE, INC.; and DOES 1 through 60, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 2:22-cv-02958 (C.D. Cal., May 3, 2022) is an action against the
Defendant for copyright infringement and unfair business
practices.
According to the complaint, Redbubble has profited from its
unauthorized use of the Plaintiffs' copyrighted design through the
sale of the infringing goods, diverting profits from the sale of
authentic goods of the Plaintiffs, and causing harm to the
Plaintiffs' reputation and goodwill.
Also, Redbubble's procedures and policies are wholly inadequate for
addressing the clear cases of infringement by its products. In
fact, its policies and procedures practically allow Redbubble to
avoid any responsibility for policing its own products until it is
notified of infringement by the copyright holder. Instead of
Redbubble policing its own online marketplace for infringing works,
it places the onus on the copyright holders to track down and
address the unlicensed counterfeit products.
REDBUBBLE INC. operates as an online marketplace. The Company
offers shirts, stickers, phone cases, pillows, and other related
products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roger N. Behle, Jr., Esq.
Kevin D. Gamarnik, Esq.
Jordan A. Liebman, Esq.
FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
15 West Carrillo Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (714) 556-1700
Facsimile: (714) 546-5005
Email: rbehle@foleybezek.com
kgamarnik@foleybezek.com
liebman@foleybezek.com
SALSAS OF TITUSVILLE: Paz Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
EMMA PAZ, and other similarly situated individuals v. SALSAS OF
TITUSVILLE CORPORATION d/b/a SALSAS COCINA TITUSVILLE a/k/a Salsas
Mexican Restaurant and JESUS VALENCIA, Case No. 6:22-cv-00834 (M.D.
Fla., May 3, 2022) is an action to recover money damages for unpaid
wages and retaliatory discharge under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff contends that she was employed by Corporate Defendant
as a server performing the same or similar duties as that of those
other similarly situated server(s) whom she observed working in
excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation.
In total, she worked approximately 73 compensable weeks under the
FLSA, or 73 compensable weeks if we count 3 years preceding the
date of the filing of the instant action. However, the Corporate
Defendant did not properly compensate her for hours
that she worked in excess of 40 per week, the Plaintiff adds.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aron Smukler, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
E-mail: asmukler@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
SHARED IMAGING: Court Can't Approve Class Settlement in Ranger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Monica Ranger, et al., Plaintiffs v. Shared Imaging,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00401-KJM-KJN (E.D.
Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California issued an order regarding the
Plaintiffs' motion for provisional certification of class action
and preliminary approval of settlement.
On Nov. 11, 2021, the parties in the wage and hour class action
alerted the court that they were "in the process of finalizing a
joint stipulation for class action and PAGA settlement." Following
the parties' agreement in principle to settle the action, the Court
ordered all proceedings stayed for 120 days, until March 12, 2022.
It also noted that if a motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement was not filed by March 12, 2022, the parties were
ordered to show cause why the stay should not be lifted.
On Jan. 28, 2022, Defendant Shared Imaging filed a status report
notifying the court that the parties "have been unable to file a
joint stipulation of settlement, due to a fundamental disagreement
over the number of workweeks applicable to the settlement class."
According to the Defendant, the Plaintiffs declined to file a joint
status report or endorse the status report. It requested a status
conference before the Court to address this last remaining issue
before finalizing a joint stipulation of settlement.
On March 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for provisional
certification of class action and preliminary approval of
settlement. The Defendant filed an opposition, arguing that the
Plaintiffs "sought settlement approval prematurely, because no
enforceable settlement agreement exists arising from the parties'
executed Memorandum of Understanding [MOU]," which set forth the
essential terms of the agreement in principle to settle the case.
The Plaintiffs filed a reply on April 26, arguing the MOU is an
enforceable contract and that the parties' disagreement over the
number of aggregate workweeks described in the MOU did not preclude
a "meeting of the minds".
Judge Mueller agrees with the Defendant that settlement approval
would be premature, as the parties have not satisfied the
pre-filing meet and confer requirements nor agreed to a
settlement.
First, she says, the MOU included a paragraph stating that the
"Plaintiffs will prepare and, after the Defendant has an
opportunity to review, the Initial Approval Motion and Final
Approval Motion, which will be filed subject to the Defendant's
express approval." While grammatically flawed, this provision makes
clear (1) the Defendant would have the opportunity to review the
initial approval motion, and (2) the Plaintiffs would only file the
motion with the Defendant's express approval. The Plaintiffs did
not provide the Defendant with a draft of the motion, nor did it
approve of their filing the motion. Their apparent request for the
Court to interpret and enforce the MOU is not properly before the
court and, regardless, their arguments demonstrate the Plaintiffs
did not satisfy the Court's routine pre-filing meet and confer
requirements set out in its standing orders.
Second, the parties previously represented to the Court that they
were "in the process of finalizing a joint stipulation for class
action and PAGA settlement." Indeed, the Court's ability to approve
a wage and hour class action settlement depends on the parties'
agreeing to the terms set out in the motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement, not a predicate MOU. Accordingly, Judge
Mueller cannot approve the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement because there is no settlement
agreement before her.
Because the parties have not filed a joint stipulation by the
deadline set in the Court's previous order, the stay is lifted and
the Court's June 25, 2020 scheduling order is in effect, adjusted
to account for the date of the Order. Fact discovery will be
completed by 5/20/2022; expert disclosures will be completed by
6/30/2022; rebuttal expert witnesses will be exchanged by
7/21/2022; all expert discovery will be completed by 8/18/2022; and
all dispositive motions, except for motions for continuances,
temporary restraining orders or other emergency applications, will
be heard by 10/10/2022.
Judge Mueller's Order resolves ECF No. 32.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4wxuwd83 from Leagle.com.
SKYWEST AIRLINES: Stockbridge Sues Over Flight Crew's Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL STOCKBRIDGE and XAVIER CASTRO, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as
aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act,
Plaintiff v. SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., a Utah corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV13789 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 25, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have intentionally and
willfully failed to provide employees with or retain complete and
accurate wage statements and failed to pay wages, without abatement
or reduction.
Pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act, and in particular
California Labor Code sections 2699, 2699.3 and 2699.5, Plaintiff,
acting in the public interest as a private attorney general, seeks
assessment and collection of unpaid wages and civil penalties for
Plaintiffs, all other aggrieved employees, and the State of
California against Defendants, in addition to other remedies, for
violations of California Labor Code section 226.
The Defendants employed Plaintiffs in one or more flight crew
positions within the State of California until 2021.
Skywest Airlines, Inc. provides retail air transportation both
throughout the State of California and on a national basis and are
purported to be one of the major airlines of the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
THE BAINER LAW FIRM
1999 Harrison St., Suite 1800
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 922-1802
E-mail: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com
UNITED SERVICES: Court Refuses to Stay Discovery in Advanced Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADVANCED EXTERIORS, INC., Plaintiff v. UNITED SERVICES
AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, USAA
GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, and GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-cv-01817-WJM-NYW
(D. Colo.), Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado denied the Defendants' Motion to
Stay Discovery.
I. Background
Plaintiff Advanced Exteriors, Inc. initiated the civil action on
July 2, 2021, and filed a First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
on Oct. 19, 2021. The Plaintiff names four Defendants in the
putative class action: United Services Automobile Association
("USAA"), USAA Casualty Insurance Co., USAA General Indemnity Co.,
and Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Co.
The Plaintiff alleges generally that, in the roofing-repair
context, USAA "refuses to pay the roofing labor rate for tear-off
of roofing material," which Plaintiff asserts is the market rate,
and that USAA instead pays only a "demolition rate." It asserts
three claims on behalf of itself and a class of persons or entities
who have performed roofing work for USAA: (1) unreasonable delay or
denial of insurance benefits pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. Sections
10-3-1115 and 10-3-1116; (2) unjust enrichment; and (3) a claim
seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.
The case was originally assigned to the Honorable William J.
Martinez and referred to the Honorable N. Reid Neureiter. Judge
Neureiter held a Scheduling Conference in the matter on Nov. 9,
2021, at which time he set the discovery deadline for Sept. 19,
2022 and the dispositive motions deadline for Dec. 23, 2022. On
Nov. 15, 2021, Judge Martinez ordered that the case be reassigned
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge due to a related case that had
been assigned to Judge Martinez and referred to the undersigned:
Advanced Exteriors, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. et al.,
21-cv-01814-WJM-NYW.
The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss in the case on Nov. 2,
2021, moving the Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims for
failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).The Motion to Dismiss
is fully briefed, and remains pending before the presiding judge.
The Defendants then filed the instant Motion to Stay on April 14,
2022. In the Motion, the Defendants "move for a 90-day stay of
discovery in light of their pending motion to dismiss and the waste
of resources that will occur if discovery proceeds and their motion
to dismiss is later granted."
The Court ordered the Plaintiff to respond to the Motion to Stay by
April 25, 2022, and ordered that no replies would be permitted
absent leave of court. Thereafter, the Parties jointly contacted
the court to set a Discovery Dispute Conference in the matter,
which was set on the court's calendar for May 9, 2022. The
Plaintiff subsequently filed a Response, opposing a stay of
discovery and "requesting that the Court strikes the Motion and
enforce the informal discovery dispute procedure outlined" in Judge
Wang's Practice Standards. Because the Motion is ripe for
disposition, Judge Wang considers the Parties' arguments.
II. Analysis
A. Plaintiff's Request to Strike the Motion to Stay
Judge Wang first addresses the Plaintiff's assertions that the
Motion to Stay violates the undersigned's Practice Standards and
its accompanying request that the court strike the Motion. She
explains that as a preliminary matter, the Local Rules provide that
"a motion will not be included in a response or reply to the
original motion. A motion will be filed as a separate document."
Accordingly, insofar as the Plaintiff requests relief from the
Court in its Response, such a request is not properly before the
Court.
The Practice Standard which the Plaintiff references concerns
instances in which parties have a dispute concerning the substance
of discovery, and encourages parties to participate in a discovery
dispute conference prior to filing "any discovery motion" -- e.g.,
a motion to compel or a motion for sanctions. The Court has not
traditionally held discovery dispute conferences to discuss whether
a stay of discovery is appropriate, and accordingly, Judge Wang
does not consider a motion to stay all discovery to be a motion
which requires the Parties to first contact the court to schedule a
discovery dispute conference. While she certainly appreciates all
Parties familiarizing themselves and complying with the
undersigned's Practice Standards, Judge Wang declines to strike the
Defendants' Motion on this basis.
B. The Motion to Stay
In determining whether a stay is appropriate, courts consider the
following five factors (the "String Cheese factors"): (1)
plaintiff's interest in proceeding expeditiously with the civil
action and the potential prejudice to plaintiff of a delay; (2) the
burden on the defendant; (3) the convenience to the court; (4) the
interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5)
the public interest.
The Defendants argue that a brief stay of discovery will not cause
any prejudice to the Plaintiff," reasoning that a 90-day stay of
discovery will not run the risk of any loss of evidence and will
"balance the Plaintiff's interest in proceeding with the case." In
response, the Plaintiff asserts that due to the upcoming discovery
deadlines in the case, staying discovery "will delay the case
significantly and require an entirely new Scheduling Order, with
new discovery and motions cutoff dates."
Judge Wang holds that even a brief 90-day stay may potentially
delay the efficient resolution of the Plaintiff's claims, as it
would likely require the re-setting of the case deadlines and
subsequent delay of trial, should the Motion to Dismiss be denied.
Indeed, "dispositive motions are denied more often than they result
in the termination of a case. Consequently, it is more likely than
not from a statistical point of view that a delay pending a ruling
would prove unnecessary." Moreover, she notes that while the
Defendants seek only a 90-day stay of discovery, there is no
guarantee that the Motion to Dismiss will be ruled on in the next
90 days, given the significant caseload of the judges within the
District.
With respect to the second String Cheese factor, the Defendants
maintain that "allowing discovery to proceed would impose a large
burden" on Defendants, as Plaintiff seeks "extensive discovery"
with respect to 263 claim files. In response, the Plaintiff
challenges Defendants' general assertions as to the burdensome
nature of anticipated discovery.
Judge Wang, insofar as the Parties have pending disputes over the
scope of discovery, declines to wade into such disputes at this
time, given the upcoming Discovery Dispute Conference. She is
confident that the counsel will meaningfully work to narrow the
Parties' discovery requests to cover only what is truly necessary
to proceed efficiently with the litigation. She also notes that the
Defendants are always burdened when they are sued, and the ordinary
burdens associated with litigating a case do not constitute undue
burdens.
Turning to the third String Cheese factor, the Defendants contend
that a brief stay of discovery would serve the Court's interests
because "given the extent of discovery the Plaintiff demands, there
may be a need for judicial intervention to manage the permissible
scope of discovery," and if the Motion to Dismiss is eventually
granted, the Court would have expended resources that ultimately
prove unnecessary.
Judge Wang respectfully disagrees. She says, the potential for
discovery disputes between the Parties does not overpower the
Court's "strong interest in ensuring the speedy resolution of the
cases before it." While a Discovery Dispute Conference has already
been scheduled in the matter, Judge Wang is not persuaded that the
potential for discovery disputes between the Parties warrants a
stay of discovery. More broadly, she cannot invite the practice of
parties filing motions to stay discovery solely based on the
possibility that discovery could be narrowed or obviated by a
pending dispositive motion.
In arguing that the public interest weighs in favor of a stay of
discovery, the Defendants assert the same arguments as those raised
with respect to the third String Cheese factor: That a stay of
discovery would obviate the need for the court to hear discovery
disputes and would conserve judicial resources.But while the public
may have an interest in the conservation of finite judicial
resources, the public also has a "strong interest regarding the
prompt and efficient handling of all litigation." Considerations of
fairness and timeliness will not be advanced by the imposition of a
stay. Judge Wang is not persuaded that the public interest favors a
stay of discovery and concludes that this factor is neutral.
Finally, the Defendants argue that a stay of discovery serves the
interests of non-parties because non-party policyholders "may
object to disclosure of their claim-file information to Plaintiff,
or to being targeted as third-party witnesses," and thus non-party
policyholders "have an interest in not being engaged in this
lawsuit unnecessarily." The Plaintiff responds that the Defendants'
assertions are without merit, as a Protective Order has been
entered in this matter and the discovery requests concern insurer
estimates and claims handling notes, not personal information of
the insureds.
Judge Wang respectfully concludes that the Defendants' arguments
concerning non-party interests are speculative. There is no present
indication in the briefing or on the docket that any specifically
identified non-parties would be burdened if discovery were to
proceed in this matter. Additionally, she cannot conclude that the
possibility that a non-party may be required to participate in some
aspect of discovery would be so burdensome on the non-party so as
to warrant a stay of discovery in this matter. To so find would
render this factor meaningless because the party seeking a stay in
any case could offer the same generalized argument."
III. Conclusion
For all of these reasons, Judge Wang finds no basis to depart from
well-settled authority in the District that disfavors stays pending
the resolution of a dispositive motion. Weighing the interests of
the Parties, the Court, the non-parties, and the general public,
Judge Wang concludes that a stay of discovery is not warranted.
Accordingly, she denied the Motion to Stay.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/wkpbhf7z from Leagle.com.
UNITED STATES: Officer May File 2nd Amended Complaint v. Air Force
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AIR FORCE OFFICER, Plaintiff v. LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III,
individually and in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense;
FRANK KENDALL, III, individually and his official capacity as
Secretary of the Air Force; and ROBERT I. MILLER, individually and
his official capacity as Surgeon General of the Air Force,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:22-CV-00009-tes (M.D. Ga.), Judge
Tilman E. Self, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia, Macon Division, issued an Omnibus Order
granting:
a. the Plaintiff's leave to file her Second Amended Class
Action Complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2); and
b. the Additional Representatives' Motion for Leave to Proceed
Anonymously.
I. Background
On Feb. 15, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiff, a United States
Air Force officer, a preliminary injunction preventing the United
States Air Force from taking any adverse action against her for
refusing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. It issued the injunction
because it found that the Air Force's blanket vaccine mandate and
legally lacking religious accommodation program likely violated her
rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act. The Court did not require the Air Force to grant
the Plaintiff any specific religious accommodation; rather, it
merely ruled -- preliminarily -- that the military could not
enforce its mandatory vaccination requirement against her.
Based on that ruling, the Plaintiff subsequently filed her First
Amended Complaint to transform this single-plaintiff lawsuit into a
class action. The Defendants have moved to strike this amended
complaint because the Plaintiff didn't receive their written
consent or the Court's leave. The Plaintiff responds by saying that
she doesn't need their written consent or the Court's leave because
she has the right to amend as a matter of course. Not long after
filing her First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff filed a Motion
for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint.
Naturally, at this juncture, the Court has to decide which one is
operative: The Plaintiff's original Complaint, her First Amended
Complaint, or her Second Amended Class Action Complaint.
II. Discussion
A. Plaintiff's Operative Complaint
The Defendants have moved to strike the Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint, and their motion is but one of ten pending motions.
Resolving the Rule 15-based issues surrounding the Plaintiff's
amendments to her Complaint clears the path for a much more
effective resolution of the remaining nine.
Rule 15 provides two ways for parties in federal court to amend a
pleading before trial. One way is by amending as a matter of course
under Rule 15(a)(1). A party can amend a pleading "once as a matter
of course" (or right) during either of two distinct and separate
periods: (1) within 21 days of serving it or (2) within 21 days
after service of a responsive pleading or a motion under Rule
12(b), (e), or (f). Other than amendments "as a matter of course,"
the second and only other way to amend a pleading before trial
comes from the "other amendments" provision found in Rule 15(a)(2).
That provision says, "in all other cases, a party may amend its
pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the
court's leave."
The obvious starting point under a "matter of course" amendment is
to determine which one of the two "service" dates apply to
kick-start the 21-day periods. The Plaintiff successfully served
each Defendant on Jan. 7, 2022. So, to amend her pleading "as a
matter of course" within 21 days of serving it, the Plaintiff --
applying Rule 6(a)(1)(C) -- had until Jan. 31, 2022, to do so.
Thus, according to the Defendants, the Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint filed on Feb. 28, 2022, fell outside the 21-day period in
Rule 15(a)(1)(A). About the 21-day period under Rule 15(a)(1)(B),
the 21-day period starts when a plaintiff's opponent serves a
responsive pleading or motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). In the
present case, the Defendants have yet to file any responsive
pleading or one of the designated Rule 12(b) motions, so they
contend that the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed on Feb.
28, 2022, isn't properly filed under Rule 15(a)(1)(B) either.
Continuing their line of reasoning, the Defendants argue that since
Rule 15(a)(1) doesn't apply, all the Plaintiff is left with is the
"other amendments" provision under Rule 15(a)(2). However, the
Defendants argue that because the Plaintiff failed to obtain either
their written consent or "the court's leave," she didn't comply
with Rule 15(a)(2) so that her First Amended Complaint should be
stricken pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
The Court would likely be hard-pressed to find an interpretation of
Rule 15 that differs from the Defendants'. Their interpretation
presents a textualist reading of Rule 15, but the Plaintiff
disagrees with it. She takes the position that she had the right to
file the First Amended Complaint "any time before" the Defendants
filed a responsive pleading or appropriate Rule 12(b) motion. On
top of that argument, the Plaintiff tries to defeat the Defendants'
attempt to strike her First Amended Complaint on the basis that
their use of Rule 12(f) isn't at all proper.
Judge Self finds that the Plaintiff's leave-seeking motion is
styled as a "Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint";
thus, looking at just the title of her motion, she obviously wants
her Second Amended Class Action Complaint to be the operative
complaint at the end of the day. Whether she amends her First
Amended Complaint or her original Complaint (if the Court struck
her First Amended Complaint) really doesn't matter. What does
matter is that she has properly asked the Court for permission to
file a new amended complaint, and the Court will consider that
request. Again, regardless of whether the First Amended Complaint
ever controlled, the Plaintiff undeniably wants the Second Amended
Class Action Complaint to be the pleading that controls in the
case. In any event, the Defendants' standing arguments are better
suited for briefing regarding class certification as opposed to
inclusion in a motion to strike an entire pleading.
The case is still in its very early stages. Based on that and the
stated reasons, Judge Self grants the Plaintiff leave so that she
may file her "Second Amended Class Action Complaint." Only upon its
re-filing (not as an exhibit attached to her motion) will it render
her Complaint and the First Amended Complaint (to the extent the
latter ever controlled) no longer operative. In light of the
Court's freely given leave, Judge Self need not consider the
Plaintiff's discontent with the Defendants' use of Rule 12(f) as a
means to strike her First Amended Complaint. He denies their Motion
to Strike as moot.
B. Briefing Schedule
Even though the Defendants filed a Motion to Stay District Court
Proceedings Pending Appeal of the Court's grant of a preliminary
injunction, Judge Self exercises his discretion and denies their
motion so that its preliminarily granted relief can remain intact.
He says, the delay presented by the Defendants' appeal of the
Court's grant of a preliminary injunction could potentially span
several years, and he sees no reason why the class representatives
whom the Plaintiff adds via her Second Amended Class Action
Complaint should not be able to obtain the preliminary relief she
has been awarded -- if they can independently meet the requirements
for such relief.
In exercising the discretion afforded to him, Judge Self will allow
the case to proceed especially given the motion before the Court
seeking class certification for similarly situated individuals. If
the putative class is certified (or if other courts certify classes
that are ultimately consolidated into multi-district litigation
proceedings), all of the Plaintiffs will be on the same footing,
and their claims can ultimately be heard together. Plus, the
Eleventh Circuit could always choose to stay the case as well as
the current preliminary injunction while the Defendants pursue
their appeal.
Accordingly, Judge Self lifts the Court's previously imposed stay
related to briefing for the motions listed, and orders the
following briefing schedule:
a. Regarding the Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion to Certify
Class and Appoint Class Counsel, their Supplemental Motion for
Class-Wide Preliminary Injunction, and the Court's ruling on the
Plaintiff's original
class-certification/appointment-of-class-counsel motion and
class-wide preliminary injunction motion, the Plaintiffs may (if
they choose to do so) merge the arguments contained in the
Plaintiff's original and their supplemental class-certification,
appointment-of-class-counsel, and class-wide preliminary injunction
motions into new, consolidated motions by May 12, 2022.
In other words, the Plaintiffs may merge the contents from
their Motion to Certify Class and Appoint Counsel and her Motion
for Class-Wide Preliminary Injunction with their Supplemental
Motion to Certify Class and Appoint Class Counsel and Supplemental
Motion for Class-Wide Preliminary Injunction, so that the Court
doesn't have to cull multiple documents to ensure that it has
considered all of the pertinent arguments.
b. The Defendants will have 21 days to respond to both
motions.
c. The Plaintiffs will have 14 days to reply to the
Defendants' responses.
C. Leave to Proceed Anonymously
As to the case's original plaintiff, the Court previously granted
her leave to proceed anonymously. The additional representatives
named in the Second Amended Class Action Complaint seek that same
leave. Given that the Defendants "take no position" on whether the
additional representatives should be allowed to proceed
anonymously, Judge Self sees no reason to treat them any
differently. Thus, he grants the Additional Representatives' Motion
for Leave to Proceed Anonymously.
III. Conclusion
Consistent with his stated rulings, Judge Self ordered as follows:
(1) The Plaintiff's leave to file her Second Amended Class
Action Complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) is granted.
(2) The Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint is denied as moot.
(3) The Defendants' Motion to Stay District Court Proceedings
Pending Appeal is denied, and the briefing stay previously imposed
is lifted.
(4) The Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and Appoint
Counsel and Motion for Class-Wide Preliminary Injunction are denied
as moot.
(5) The Plaintiffs may merge the arguments contained in their
original and supplemental class-certification motions,
appointment-of-class-counsel motions, and class-wide preliminary
injunction motions into a new, single motion, but they must do so
by May 12, 2022. The Court's regular briefing schedule will
follow.
(6) The Additional Representatives' Motion for Leave to
Proceed Anonymously is granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Omnibus Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mr2kkz5s from Leagle.com.
VERTIV HOLDINGS: Faces Riviera Beach Suit Over Stock Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. VERTIV
HOLDINGS CO, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03572 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2022)
is a securities class action on behalf of persons and entities
that: (a) purchased shares of Vertiv's Class A common stock between
February 24, 2021, and February 23, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"); and/or (b) purchased Vertiv shares in or traceable to the
Company's secondary public offering of Class A common stock
conducted on or around November 4, 2021.
The claims asserted herein are alleged against Vertiv and certain
of the Company's officers, members of Vertiv's Board of Directors,
including the directors that signed the Registration Statement for
the SPO, the Selling Shareholders, and the underwriters of the SPO,
and arise under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder.
Throughout the Class Period, Vertiv repeatedly touted its robust
pricing capabilities, which purportedly enabled it to improve the
Company's operating margins even in the face of constrained supply
chains. For example. the Company repeatedly touted that its
"procurement and pricing initiatives drove contribution margin
improvement." Even as the Company felt increasing inflationary and
supply chain pressures, it continued to assure investors that its
"pricing initiatives have continued to yield favorable results."
While the Company also acknowledged the rising cost of raw
materials, it assured investors that it would maintain and even
grow margins by passing along those costs to its customers, says
the suit.
In the Offering Materials issued in connection with the SPO and
throughout the Class Period, Vertiv made these same
representations, stating "margin improved primarily due to fixed
cost savings and contribution margin improvements (volume leverage,
operation productivity, and pricing)" in its Form 10-Q for the
first quarter 2021 which was expressly incorporated by reference
into the Offering Materials. The SPO closed on or about November 4,
2021, and VPE Holdings, LLC ultimately sold 20 million shares of
Vertiv Class A common stock at $24.83 per share, reaping over $496
million in gross proceeds.
Contrary to the Company's representations, however, Vertiv's
"pricing initiatives" were ineffective and the Company's sales
force was not capable of driving higher pricing and passing costs
on to customers. Instead, the sales team had resorted to
discounting in order to drive sales and build the Company's
backlog, which resulted in lower margins and profitability.
The truth began to emerge on February 23, 2022, when Vertiv
released dismal financial results for the fourth quarter and full
year ended December 31, 2021. That day, analysts published that the
Company's reported adjusted operating income was 43% below the low
end of management's own guidance range and profits missed by 45% on
weak margins.
Analysts were shocked by the Company's poor earnings announcement,
with analysts from Deutsche Bank Research reporting that "a miss of
this magnitude warranted a pre- announcement." Wolfe research
reported that "In our 17 years of covering industrials we can't
recall a drawdown of this magnitude, even during the [Great
Financial Crisis]" and that "management credibility is completely
shot."
As a result of these disclosures, the price of Vertiv stock
declined by $7.19 per share, or over 36%.
As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
shares, Plaintiff and putative Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages. Plaintiff and putative Class
members seek damages for redress, reasonable attorneys' fees,
injunctive relief, and all other relief this Court deems just and
proper.
Plaintiff Riviera Beach provides retirement benefits to eligible
general employees of the City of Riviera Beach, Florida.
Vertiv designs, manufactures, and services critical digital
infrastructure technologies and life cycle services for data
centers, communication networks, and commercial and industrial
environments. Vertiv offers software solutions as well as a range
of hardware solutions to its customers throughout the global data
center industry. In connection with its hardware business, Vertiv
engages in manufacturing and global supply chain logistics that are
susceptible to cost fluctuation deriving from the inflation of
material, manufacturing, and supply chain pricing. The Individual
Defendants are officers of the company.
The Defendants include ROB JOHNSON, DAVID FALLON, JASON FORCIER,
GARY NIEDERPRUEM, DAVID COTE, JOSEPH VAN DOKKUM, ROGER FRADIN,
JACOB KOTZUBEI, MATTHEW LOUIE, EDWARD L. MONSER, STEVEN S.
REINEMUND, ROBIN L. WASHINGTON, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC,
GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., VPE
HOLDINGS, LLC, VERTIV JV HOLDINGS LLC, PE VERTIV HOLDINGS LLC,
PLATINUM EQUITY, LLC, PLATINUM EQUITY INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC,
PLATINUM EQUITY INVESTMENT HOLDINGS MANAGER, LLC, PLATINUM EQUITY
INVESTCO, L.P., EQUITY INVESTMENT HOLDINGS IC (CAYMAN), LLC,
PLATINUM INVESTCO (CAYMAN), LLC, PLATINUM EQUITY INVESTMENT
HOLDINGS III, LLC, PLATINUM EQUITY INVESTMENT HOLDINGS MANAGER III,
LLC, and TOM GORES.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hannah Ross, Esq.
Avi Josefson, Esq.
Scott R. Foglietta, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com
avi@blbglaw.com
scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com
WEST COAST: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Garcia Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARCO RAMOS GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and the general public of California, v. WEST
COAST CONTAINER SERVICES; CHARLES SAPIEN; DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 22LBCV00201 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May
4, 2022) alleges that the Defendants made unlawful deductions from
plaintiff's remuneration and failed to reimburse him for business
expenses including GPS, liability insurance, fuel, and mileage.
Also, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay separate compensation
for rest periods and nonproductive time (including, but not limited
to, conducting vehicle inspections, waiting to be dispatched,
waiting time between loads, waiting time to pick up a load, loading
and unloading time, travel time from the final delivery or drop-off
location, fueling, etc.); failed to pay the minimum wage for all
hours worked, including but not limited to nonproductive time;
failed to provide required meal and rest periods; failed to pay
overtime compensation for the overtime hours he worked; willfully
failed to pay all wages owed that has separated from his
employment; and failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements
by failing to include the information required by Labor Code
section 226(a).
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an employee driver
paid on a piece rate basis.
West Coast offers rail container deliveries throughout California,
Arizona and Nevada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
TELLERIA, TELLERIA & LEVY, LLP
1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 387-3400
Facsimile: (213) 387-7872
E-mail: ajenkinssg@gmail.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 ***