/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220520.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, May 20, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 95
Headlines
10 ROADS EXPRESS: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
7-ELEVEN INC: Quiroz Sues Over Illegal Biometric Data Retention
ANTHONY FASULO: Stay Remains in Effect in Palumbo Suit
ARROYO ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Sitton Suit Says
AXIOM HEALTHCARE: Gordon Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
BITETTO BUILDING: Arce Sues Over Construction Workers’ Unpaid OT
BP EXPLORATION: Order Denying Galan's Class Membership Affirmed
BRIGGS TRADITIONAL: Filing of Class Cert Bid Out of Time Sought
CASABLANCA EXPRESS: Sirota Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls
CEDAR REALTY: Sydney Breach of Contract Suit Removed to D. Md.
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Dickerson et al. Sue Over Unpaid OT Wages
CHARTER FOODS: Court Tosses Burris Bid to Certify Class
CONAGRA BRANDS: Faces Ruiz Suit Over Popcorn Products' PFAS-Content
CONAGRA BRANDS: Richburg Sues Over Popcorn Product's PFAS-content
DAIMLER AG: Parties in Calen Seek Initial OK of Settlement Deal
DEFENDER ONE: Fails to Pay Security Guards’ OT, Daniels Suit Says
DELTA AIR: Scheduling Order Entered in Dusko Class Action
DUNKIN' BRANDS: Crooks Faces Suit Over Misleading Gift Cards
ENERGY INSPECTION: Underpays Welding Inspectors, Sisk Suit Says
EXQUISITO RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Suit Says
FASHION NOVA: Grieben et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads
FLORIDA DOC: Class Action Settlement in Davis Gets Final OK
FORD MOTOR: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Continued to June 15
FOX REHABILITATION: Conner Bid to Stay Denied
GMO-Z.COM TRUST: Donovan Sues Over Cryptocurrency Trading Scheme
GOLDEN STATE: Court Refers Back Bid to Certify Class in Trevino
GREENIX PEST: Hutt Seeks Extension of Time to File Reply
HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Certify Class in Sanchez Suit Denied
HENLEY PACIFIC: Mora Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
ICON BURGER: Sheth Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
ILLINOIS TOOL: Faces Russell Suit Over Mismanaged Retirement Plan
ILLINOIS: Davis Bid to Certify Class Tossed as Moot
INMAR INC: MDI Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice
JUST A SLICE: McLeod's Appeal From Atty. Fees' Ruling Dismissed
JUUL LABS: DeKalb County Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis in Ind.
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, New Castle Suit Alleges
KROGER CO: Loses Bid to Strike Womick's Class Allegations
LANIER INC: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Allen Suit Claims
MDL 2548: Final Judgment Issued in Trading Suit as to Deutsche Bank
MDL 2548: Final Judgment Issued in Trading Suit as to HSBC Bank plc
MEREDITH CORP: Faces Rancourt Suit Over Personal Info Disclosure
MITEK SYSTEMS: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Johnson Suit Denied
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Shortbread Cookies' Label "Deceptive," Howze Says
NASHVILLE BOOTING: Scheduling Order Entered in Ladd Class Suit
NOBILIS HEALTH: Yang Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit to 5th Cir.
NYC HARLEM: Medina Seeks Initial Approval of Proposed Settlement
OPTIONS HOME: Extension of Conditional Status Bid Filing Sought
OSCAR HEALTH: Faces Carpenter Suit Over Drop in Share Price
PANORAMA ORTHOPEDICS: Faces Stanley FLSA Suit in D. Colorado
PARAMOUNT RECOVERY: Crews Seeks Extension of Deadlines
PENSKE TRUCK: Underpays Mechanics, Phillips Suit Claims
PIZZA BAKER: Settlement in Clark Partially Granted Initial OK
PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Rioux Suit Converted to Civil Case in D.N.H.
QUALITY HUTS: Vice Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unreimbursed Costs
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bennett, et al., Seek to Certify Class, Subclass
QUINSTREET INC: Pizarro Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Messages
RICOLA USA: Davis Sues Over Mislabeled Cough Suppressant Lozenges
ROCKET COMPANIES: Michigan Court Amends Qaiyum's Case Caption
RUST-OLEUM CORP: Osorio Suit Seeks Proper Overtime Wages
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Class Notice for 2021 Claimants Approved in Fox
SANITAS USA: Sechi-Capote Sues Over Discrimination & Unpaid Wages
SANTA CLARA, CA: Court Tosses Leon's Bid for Class Certification
SEMI-TROPIC COOP: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Terminated
SEQUOIA ONE: Scheduling Order Entered in Bendau Class Action
STEWARD HEALTH: Ct. Amends Class Certification Schedule in Williams
TAILORED BRANDS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barbieri Alleges
TARGET CORPORATION: Medina Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
UNIFUND CCR: Cobbins Consumer Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
WORLD AUTOMOTIVE: Unlawfully Denied Consumers' Credit Applications
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Has $301MM Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Has 186 Cases Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Defends Numerous Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Still Faces A&E Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l. Faces Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l. Paper Has $101MM Liabilities at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Defends 1,524 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Defends 342 Open Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Safety Faces 1,691 Lawsuits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Still Defends Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Faces Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 407 Pending Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 919 Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Still Faces Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurn Water Faces 6,000 PI Lawsuits at March 31
*********
10 ROADS EXPRESS: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 10 ROADS EXPRESS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-02783 (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2022) is a class action complaint
brought against the Defendant for its alleged illegal pay practices
that violated the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a mail delivery
driver from 2016 through mid-late 2021.
The Plaintiff asserts claim that the Defendant has failed to
properly pay him and other similarly situated Manual Workers their
lawfully earned wages within seven calendar days after the end of
the week in which these wages were earned. As a result, the
Plaintiff was unable to do those things that every person does with
their money such as paying bills or buying goods that he needed or
wanted to buy, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated Manual Workers to recover from the
Defendant the amount of their untimely paid wages as liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, post-judgment
interest, and other relief as the Court shall deem just and
proper.
10 Roads Express, LLC is a mail contracting company in North
America. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
Denise A. Schulman, Esq.
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 688-5640
Fax: (212) 981-9587
7-ELEVEN INC: Quiroz Sues Over Illegal Biometric Data Retention
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS QUIROZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02394 (N.D. Ill., May 6, 2022) is a class action
arising out of Defendant's collection, storage, and use of
Plaintiff's and the Class' biometric identifiers and biometric
information without obtaining informed written consent or providing
consumers with data retention and destruction policies in violation
of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The Plaintiff brings this action to prevent Defendant from further
violating the privacy rights of Illinois residents and to recover
statutory damages for Defendant's unauthorized collection, storage,
and use of these individuals' biometric data.
The Plaintiff visited the 7-Eleven store located in Aurora,
Illinois and others in the State dozens of times over the past
three years.
7-Eleven, Inc. is an American multinational chain of retail
convenience stores, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Ave., 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
ANTHONY FASULO: Stay Remains in Effect in Palumbo Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Palumbo, et al., v.
Anthony Fasulo, et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00797 (E.D.N.Y.), the
Court entered an order granting the parties' motion to stay and it
remains in effect.
Furthermore, discovery and mediation are stayed until May 31,
2022.
If the Court either denies the motion to dismiss in Hoeffner v
D'Amato (Case No. 09-CV-03160) or fails to issue a decision on that
motion by May 31, 2022, the following will take place:
(1) the stay on discovery and mediation will be lifted;
(2) the Order on Class Certification will remain in effect;
(3) the parties will by 08/29/2022 resolve any remaining
discovery disputes (including expert discovery) amongst
themselves or by application to the Court; and
(4) after the resolution of the discovery disputes, the Court
will consider any application from Defendants for lifting
the Order on Class Certification.
The nature of suit states Labor -- Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.[CC]
ARROYO ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Sitton Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Sitton, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs v. Arroyo Enterprises Group, LLC, an Arizona
limited liability company, Aldo Arroyo and Paola Arroyo, a married
couple, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00778-DJH (D. Ariz., May 6,
2022) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona
Minimum Wage Act for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated employees all earned minimum wages.
The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Maricopa County,
Arizona, and is a former employee of Defendants.
Arroyo Enterprises Group, LLC owns and operates a business that
specializes in the sale of solar panels and solar systems in the
Phoenix Metropolitan Area of Arizona.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
P.O. Box 97066
Phoenix, AZ 85060
Telephone: (480) 382-5176
Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
chris@bendaulaw.com
AXIOM HEALTHCARE: Gordon Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lashauna Gordon, Hydia
Griffin and Quintashia Hardyway, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. Axiom Healthcare Services, LLC, and
Reed's Cove Health and Rehabilitation, LLC, Case No.
6:22-cv-01078-HLT-RES (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
(1) finding that the Plaintiffs have met their burden under
29 U.S.C. section 216(b) with regards to their Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") claims brought pursuant to 29
U.S.C. section 201 et seq. and conditionally certifying
Plaintiffs' claims as a collective action;
(2) authorizing notice to be mailed to a class composed of
"all nonexempt employees paid on an hourly basis by Axiom
Healthcare Services, LLC and/or Reed's Cove Health and
Rehabilitation, LLC, who, in the last three years: (i)
worked at an Axiom-operated facility, and (ii) received a
bonus for working shifts, which bonus was not calculated
into the employee's regular rate for purposes of
computing overtime compensation;"
(3) requiring the Defendants within 10 days to provide
plaintiffs the following: a list in electronic and
importable format (such as Microsoft Excel), of the first
and last names, last-known addresses, telephone numbers,
last four digits of the individual's social security
number and date of birth of all members of the putative
class;
(4) requiring the Defendants to post Notice of this lawsuit
in conspicuous locations where they employ hourly
employees;
(5) tolling the statute of limitations from the date of the
filing of Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class
Certification until the close of the opt-in period;
(6) designating Lashauna Gordon, Hydia Griffin and Quintashia
Hardeyway as Class Representatives; and
(7) approving Plaintiffs' counsel to act as Class Counsel in
this matter.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 28,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FKZgIA
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Donald N. Peterson, II, Esq.
Sean M. McGivern, Esq.
GRAYBILL & HAZLEWOOD, LLC
218 N. Mosley St.
Wichita, KS 67202
Telephone: (316) 266-4058
Facsimiler: (316) 462-5566
E-mail: don@graybillhazlewood.com
sean@graybillhazlewood.
The Defendants are represented by:
Forrest T. Rhodes, Jr., Esq.
FOULSTON, SIEFKIN, LLP
1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100
Wichita, KS 67206-4466
Telephone: (316) 291-9555
Facsimile: (866) 347-5132
E-mail: frhodes@foulston.com
BITETTO BUILDING: Arce Sues Over Construction Workers’ Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER LOPEZ ARCE and SELVIN MEJIA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BITETTO BUILDING
CORP. d/b/a B&B CONTRACTING and WILLIAM BITETTO, as an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02803 (E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2022) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Arce was employed by the Defendants as a construction
worker from in or around May 2013 until in or around March 2022.
Plaintiff Mejia has worked for the Defendants as a carpenter,
electrical worker, floor worker, and a construction worker from in
or around October 2013 until in or around June 2021.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated construction workers regularly worked more than 40 hours
per workweek. However, the Defendants did not pay them their
lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek. In addition, the Defendants failed to
provide them with a written notice of their applicable regular rate
of pay, regular pay day, and all such other information as required
by NYLL. The Defendants also failed to provide them with wage
statements, upon each payment of their wages.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover all unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation
costs with reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief as the
court deems necessary and proper.
Bitetto Building Corp. provides construction services. William
Bitetto owns and operates the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Tel: (718) 263-9591
BP EXPLORATION: Order Denying Galan's Class Membership Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LMPC0402457, Requesting Party-Appellant v. BP
Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP America Production
Company, Objecting Parties-Appellees, Garretson Resolution Group,
Incorporated, as Claims Administrator of the Deepwater Horizon
Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement, doing business
as Epiq Mass Tort, Appellee, Case No. 20-30502, Summary Calendar
(5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Raoul Galan,
Jr.'s challenge to the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits
Settlement Program Claims Administrator's determination that he did
not qualify for class membership.
Proceeding pro se, Galan, claim number LMPC0402457, appeals the
district court's order. Under general maritime law, which controls
the instant case, the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class
Action Settlement Agreement "should be read as a whole and its
words given their plain meaning unless the provision is
ambiguous."
The Fifth Circuit holds that Galan does not meet the requirements
detailed in the settlement agreement's class membership definition
because he did not work as a clean-up worker at any time between
April 20, 2010, and April 16, 2012, nor did he reside in Zone A or
Zone B for at least 60 days within the applicable timeframe.
Although he maintains that he is a managing member of Cypress Lake
No.I, L.L.C., which owns property in Zone A, only natural persons
are contemplated as class members under the settlement agreement,
not business entities, and property ownership absent residency does
not meet the settlement agreement's definition of a class member.
Mr. Galan's suggestion that he should be included in the settlement
class because he suffers from depression and because "mental
depression has no geographic boundaries" is at odds with the plain
meaning of the class membership definition. To the extent his
argument can be construed as an assertion that he is eligible to
receive compensation despite failing to meet the class membership
definition, such an argument is contrary to the plain meaning of
the settlement agreement, which provides that only settlement class
members may qualify for compensation. Accordingly, the district
court did not err by denying Galan's challenge and upholding the
Claims Administrator's determination.
Finally, Galan has not shown that the Claims Administrator violated
his right to due process by requiring him to comply with the terms
of the settlement agreement in order to establish class membership
and ultimately recover under the settlement agreement.
The judgment of the district court is accordingly affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 4, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yjz27r4w from Leagle.com.
BRIGGS TRADITIONAL: Filing of Class Cert Bid Out of Time Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rios-Gutierrez et al., v.
Briggs Traditional Turf Farm, Inc., et al., Case No. (), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to
file the class certification motion out of time.
The Motion for Class Certification was docketed just under two
hours past the April 8, 2022 midnight deadline.
On October 7, 2021, the Court entered an order setting forth the
schedule for the class certification phase of this case. The
Scheduling Order bifurcated discovery into two phases. Phase I was
to be related to the Plaintiffs' anticipated class certification
motion and Phase II would involve damages and any other merits
issues. The close of Phase I discover was to be January 28, 2022.
The Scheduling Order also set February 25, 2022 as the deadline for
the Plaintiffs to submit their class certification motion.
Briggs offers the landscape design, landscape, hardscapes, drainage
and grading services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 27, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39TicZL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Werner, Esq.
RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC
315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (678) 271-0304
Facsimile: (678)271-0314
E-mail: dan@decaturlegal.com
- and -
Heather Schlozman, Esq.
Mark Dugan, Esq.
DUGAN SCHLOZMAN LLC
8826 Santa Fe Drive, Suite 307
Overland Park, KS 66212
Telephone: (913) 322-3528
Facsimile: (913) 904-0213
E-mail: heather@duganschlozman.com
mark@duganschlozman.com
CASABLANCA EXPRESS: Sirota Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON SIROTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CASABLANCA EXPRESS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 0:22-cv-60920-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 15, 2022) brings this class
action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
In an attempt to promote its business, the Defendant sent the
Plaintiff a prerecorded generic robocall to his cellular telephone
number 818-578-0150 on or about May 10, 2022. The Plaintiff asserts
that the Defendant did not obtain his prior express written consent
to transmit calls using prerecorded messages.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the
Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct which has caused the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated individuals to suffer in the form of
invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of
their daily life. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages, and
any other available legal or equitable remedies.
Casablanca Express, Inc. operates a discount travel agency. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
CEDAR REALTY: Sydney Breach of Contract Suit Removed to D. Md.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAVID SYDNEY, SWC PHOENIX FUND I, L.P., MARTIN
NOVICK, J RENEE BRENNAN LIVING TRUST, SCOTT SCHROEPFER, KENNETH
KAMHOLZ, JOE SPEISER, and ELBERT CAPITAL I LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CEDAR REALTY TRUST,
INC., CEDAR REALTY TRUST PARTNERSHIP, L.P., WHEELER REAL ESTATE
INVESTMENT TRUST, INC., BRUCE J. SCHANZER, GREGG A. GONSALVES, ABE
EISENSTAT, STEVEN G. ROGERS, SABRINA KANNER, DARCY D. MORRIS,
RICHARD H. ROSS, and SHARON STERN, Case No. C-15-CV-22-001527, was
removed from the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Maryland, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on May 11,
2022.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Maryland assigned Case No.
8:22-cv-01142-GLR to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract,
tortious interference with contract, breach of fiduciary duties,
and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties by orchestrating
a series of transactions which caused Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.'s
preferred stockholders to suffer over $65 million in losses.
SWC Phoenix Fund I, L.P. is a limited partnership with a principal
place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
J Renee Brennan Living Trust is a preferred stockholder based in
Columbus, Indiana.
Elbert Capital I LLC is a limited liability company with a
principal place of business in Denver, Colorado.
Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. is a real estate investment trust based in
New York.
Cedar Realty Trust Partnership, L.P. is a limited partnership based
in New York.
Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. is a real estate
investment trust based in Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Donald J. Enright, Esq.
Brian Stewart, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 524-4290
E-mail: denright@zlk.com
- and –
Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq.
WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G
Monsey, NY 10952
Telephone: (845) 290-6818
Facsimile: (718) 504-3773
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Dickerson et al. Sue Over Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
TAIWAN DICKERSON and KIM KING-MACON, each individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CENTENE
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC and CENTENE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case
No. 4:22-cv-00519-JMB (E.D. Mo., May 12, 2022) bring this
collective action complaint against the Defendants for their
alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiffs Dickerson and King-Macon have worked for the Defendants
as care coordinators from April 2018 to August 2021 and from around
March 2019 to November 2020, respectively.
The Plaintiffs claim that despite consistently working more than 40
hours per week as required by the Defendants, the Defendants did
not pay their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
The Plaintiffs seek judgment for damages they and other similarly
situated Coordinators have suffered for all unpaid overtime wages.
The Plaintiffs also seek liquidated damages, a reasonable
attorney's fee and all costs, and other relief as the Court may
deem just and proper.
Centene Management Company, LLC and Centene Corporation provide
healthcare plans and services to its customers. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Courtney Harness, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: harness@sanfordlawfirm.com
CHARTER FOODS: Court Tosses Burris Bid to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOBY BURRIS, et al., v.
CHARTER FOODS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-158 (E.D. Tenn.), the
Hon. Judge Charles E. Atchley Jr. entered an order accepting and
adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in
US Magistrate Judge Cynthia Wyrick's Report and Recommendation, and
denying the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective action
certification.
On March 23, 2022, Magistrate Judge Wyrick filed a Report and
Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636 and the standing
orders of this Court. Judge Wyrick recommends that Plaintiffs'
Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification be denied.
Specifically, Judge Wyrick concluded that Plaintiffs failed to
demonstrate that Defendants utilized an Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA)-violating policy; and thus, the Plaintiffs necessarily
failed to show that they and members of the proposed collective are
similarly situated.
The parties have not filed any objections to the Report and
Recommendation and the time to do so has passed. 1 Nevertheless,
the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, as well as
the record in this case, and agrees with Judge Wyrick's
well-reasoned conclusions.
Charter Foods was founded in 1997. The Company's line of business
includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for
on-premise consumption.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sAlBTJ at no extra charge.[CC]
CONAGRA BRANDS: Faces Ruiz Suit Over Popcorn Products' PFAS-Content
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC. Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-2421 (N.D. Ill., May 6, 2022) is a class action concerning
Conagra's false and misleading labeling of its Orville
Redenbacher's(R) microwave popcorn products in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Illinois
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law, California Unfair
Competition Law, New York's Deceptive Practices Act, Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Practices Act, and State Consumer Protection
Statutes.
According to the complaint, the products are prominently labeled as
containing "only real ingredients" and "100% ingredients from
natural sources," when, in fact, Plaintiffs' testing has revealed
the products contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The alleged presence of PFAS chemicals in the products is entirely
inconsistent with Conagra's uniform representations and renders
them "unnatural" and not "real" by definition. As a result of
Conagra's misconduct, Plaintiffs and putative Class members have
suffered injury in fact, including economic damages, adds the
suit.
Conagra Brands, Inc. is an American consumer packaged goods holding
company headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Melissa K. Sims, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
111 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (815) 878-4674
E-mail: msims@milberg.com
- and -
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 389-0600
E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com
- and -
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: rsoffin@milberg.com
- and -
Harper T. Segui, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
825 Lowcountry Blvd., Suite 101
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
E-mail: hsegui@milberg.com
- and -
Erin Ruben, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
E-mail: eruben@milberg.com
- and -
Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 610-5223
E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com
CONAGRA BRANDS: Richburg Sues Over Popcorn Product's PFAS-content
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHY RICHBURG, ADRIANA GAMBOA, JEFFREY KOENIG, and CINDY MCGLONE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC. Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-02420 (N.D. Ill., May 6, 2022) is a class action concerning
Conagra's false and misleading labeling of its Orville
Redenbacher's(R) microwave popcorn products in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Illinois
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law, California Unfair
Competition Law, New York's Deceptive Practices Act, Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Practices Act, and State Consumer Protection
Statutes.
According to the complaint, the products are prominently labeled as
containing "only real ingredients" and "100% ingredients from
natural sources," when, in fact, Plaintiffs' testing has revealed
the products contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The alleged presence of PFAS chemicals in the products is entirely
inconsistent with Conagra's uniform representations and renders
them "unnatural" and not "real" by definition. As a result of
Conagra's misconduct, Plaintiffs and putative Class members have
suffered injury in fact, including economic damages, adds the
suit.
Conagra Brands, Inc. is an American consumer packaged goods holding
company headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Melissa K. Sims, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
111 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (815) 878-4674
E-mail: msims@milberg.com
- and -
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 389-0600
E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com
- and -
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: rsoffin@milberg.com
- and -
Harper T. Segui, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
825 Lowcountry Blvd., Suite 101
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
E-mail: hsegui@milberg.com
- and -
Erin Ruben, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
E-mail: eruben@milberg.com
- and -
Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 610-5223
E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com
DAIMLER AG: Parties in Calen Seek Initial OK of Settlement Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERI CALLEN on behalf of
herself and all others situated formerly known as Teri
Kimball-Callen Stomski, v. DAIMLER AG, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01411-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order granting preliminary approval of proposed class action
settlement agreement and preliminary certification of nationwide
settlement class.
On March 5, 2022, the Callen Plaintiffs filed their Unopposed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement
Agreement and Preliminary Certification of Nationwide Settlement
Class and Incorporated Memorandum of Law.
On March 15, 2022, this Court entered its Preliminary Approval
Order. The Preliminary Approval Order provided for Notice to be
sent to the Class Members 35 days from the date the Court issued
its Preliminary Approval Order for Direct Mail Notice.
In accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order, the Parties have
been diligently working with the Settlement Administrator, Epiq
Class Action and Claims Solutions, Inc. (Epiq) to obtain the data
needed to mail the Direct Mail Notice to all Class Members. Epiq
has obtained the mailing addresses and contact information for
Class Members and on April 19, 2022 mailed the Direct Mail Notice
to Class Members in all U.S. States and Territories except for four
states.
However, Epiq informs that it will need an additional 45 days to
provide Notice to Class Members in New Hampshire, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, California. The additional time is necessary because
the Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMVs) in these states require
additional time to review and provide approval to release the
mailing addresses and contact information returned from Vehicle
Identification Numbers queries.
Daimler AG is an international automotive company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 27, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yBQAmu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
2224 1st Avenue North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 326-3336
Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
E-mail: lewis@hgdlawfirm.com
taylor@hgdlawfirm.com
- and -
James F. McDonough III, Esq.
HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (404) 996-0869,-0863,-0867
Facsimile: (205) 326-5502,-5506,-5515
E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Dara D. Mann, Esq.
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
One Atlantic Center
1201 W. Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 3150
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (678) 272-3221
Facsimile: (678) 272-3211
E-mail: dara.mann@squirepb.com
- and -
Stephen B. Devereaux, Esq.
Madison H. Kitchens, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 572-4600
Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
E-mail: sdevereaux@kslaw.com
mkitchens@kslaw.com
DEFENDER ONE: Fails to Pay Security Guards’ OT, Daniels Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANTON DANIELS, FLOMO JERRY, and LAWRENCE ALSTON, on
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated employees,
Plaintiffs v. DEFENDER ONE, LLC d/b/a DEFENDER ONE SECURITY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01162-JRR (D. Md., May 13, 2022) arises
from the Defendant's alleged illegal pay practices that violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and
the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.
The Plaintiffs, who have worked for the Defendant as security
guards, bring this complaint as a collective action on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated security guards to
recover damages from the Defendant. Despite regularly working more
than 40 hours per workweek, the Defendant allegedly did not pay
them their overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 per workweek.
The Plaintiffs seek all unpaid overtime compensation owed for work
performed during the past three years, as well as liquidated
damages equal to unpaid overtime compensation, reasonable
attorneys' fees, litigation costs and disbursements, and other
relief as may be just and proper.
Defender One, LLC is a private security and protection company that
offers clients security services, including armed and unarmed
security personnel. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Molly A. Elkin, Esq.
MCGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
1101 Vermont Ave., N.W. Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 833-8855
E-mail: mae@mselaborlaw.com
DELTA AIR: Scheduling Order Entered in Dusko Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA DUSKO, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. DELTA AIR LINES,
INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01664-ELR (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Eleanor
L. Ross entered a scheduling order:
Event Deadline
-- Phase 1 (Class Certification Aug. 19, 2022
Focused) Discovery Cutoff:
-- Deadline for Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification and
Class Certification Expert:
-- Disclosure (and any Motion from September 30, 2022
Defendant to Deny Class
Certification)
-- Deadline to Respond to Motion
for Class Certification
(and Any Motion to Deny Class
Certification) and Defendant's
Class Certification:
-- Rebuttal Expert Disclosure: November 30, 2022
-- Deadline to File Any Replies January 6, 2023
in Support of Motion for Class
Certification (and Any Motion
to Deny Class Certification):
-- Phase 1 (Class Certification February 3, 2023
Focused) Expert Discovery
Cutoff:
Delta Air, typically referred to as Delta, is one of the major
airlines of the United States and a legacy carrier. One of the
world's oldest airlines in operation, Delta is headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sy412E at no extra charge.[CC]
DUNKIN' BRANDS: Crooks Faces Suit Over Misleading Gift Cards
------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL CROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DUNKIN' BRANDS GROUP INC. and SVC SERVICE II
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10738-PBS (D. Mass., May 12,
2022) seeks redress against the Defendants' practice of
misrepresenting the value of reloadable gift cards ("Gift Cards")
intended for use in Defendants' coffee and snack shops.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint, that the Defendants' Gift
Cards include unfair, deceptive, and illegal conditions that are
only revealed to customers after the point of sale, or never
revealed at all. The Defendants' Gift Cards state that the "Card
Value may not be redeemed for cash, check or credit unless required
by law."
However, the Defendants do not reveal that despite this
affirmation, Defendants' policy is that the Gift Cards are
completely non-refundable and in fact have no mechanism to refund
the value of the gift cards even in situations where state law
requires it. These remaining balances are thus unavailable to Gift
Card users and function as a hidden fee that is not disclosed to
users. Even after the point of sale, Defendants do not reveal that
their Gift Card balances are completely non-refundable until users
attempt to obtain their remaining balances, says the suit.
DUNKIN' BRANDS GROUP, INC. franchises quick service restaurants
("QSRs") serving hot and cold coffee, baked goods, as well as ice
cream. The Company operates primarily in the breakfast part of the
day within the QSR segment of the restaurant industry. Dunkin'
Brands Group operates worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Reardon, Jr.
REARDON SCANLON LLP
45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 955-9455
Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
Email: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile : (212) 989-9163
E-Mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
jdiamond@bursor.com
ENERGY INSPECTION: Underpays Welding Inspectors, Sisk Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL SISK, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ENERGY INSPECTION SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00350 (D.N.M., May 6, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages from Energy Inspection Services,
LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum
Wage Act.
According to the complaint, EIS paid Sisk and its other hourly
workers a daily vehicle expense reimbursement and daily per diem.
These payments represented compensation that is primarily for the
benefit and convenience of Sisk and EIS' other hourly employees.
Because the expense reimbursement and per diem were not included in
calculating these workers' regular rates of pay, Defendant's hourly
workers were not properly compensated at a rate of one-and-one-half
times their regular rates -- as defined by the FLSA and NMMWA --
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek,
adds the complaint.
Mr. Sisk worked for EIS from approximately January 2019 until
October 2019 as a welding inspector.
Energy Inspection Services, LLC provides inspection services to the
oil and gas industry. The Company's services include the inspection
of pipeline and facility construction, maintenance, and
operations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew Dunlap, 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
- 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
EXQUISITO RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL DIAZ; MIGUEL GARCIA VILLEGAS; and SERVANDO GARCIA VILLEGAS,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. EXQUISITO RESTAURANT INC. (d/b/a EXQUISITO RESTAURANT); and
ARGENEDIS NUNEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03859 (E.D.N.Y., May
12, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as delivery
workers.
EXQUISITO RESTAURANT INC. owns, operates, or controls a Dominican
Restaurant, located at Long Island City, New York, under the name
"Exquisito Restaurant". [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, N.Y. 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
FASHION NOVA: Grieben et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN GRIEBEN and TYNIKAL PRESSLEY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FASHION NOVA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-60908-RAR (S.D. Fla., May 13, 2022) is
a class action complaint brought against the Defendant pursuant to
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.
The Plaintiffs claim that they received telephone sales calls from
the Defendant, who engages in telemarketing in an attempt to
promote its goods and services without asking prior express written
consent to the called party. The Defendant allegedly failed to
provide the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals with
instructions on how to opt-out of future text messages. The
Defendant has utilized a computer software system that
automatically selected and dialed the Plaintiffs' and other
similarly situated individuals' telephone numbers.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged unsolicited telemarketing
calls, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals have
suffered harm, including violations of their statutory rights,
statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their
privacy. Thus, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring
the Defendant to cease all telephonic sales calls made without
express written consent. The Plaintiffs also seek statutory
damages, and other relief as the Court deems necessary.
Fashion Nova, Inc. is an online fashion store for women. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Tel: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and –
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
FLORIDA DOC: Class Action Settlement in Davis Gets Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK DAVIS, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. RICKY D.
DIXON, in his official capacity as an employee of the Florida
Department of Corrections, Case No. 3:17-cv-00820-MMH-PDB (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Marcia Morales Howard entered an order:
1. The Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof is
granted. The Court finally approves the terms of the
Settlement Agreement as a fair, reasonable, and adequate
resolution of the dispute between the parties.
2. The Court, having found that Plaintiffs have met the
prerequisites to class certification set forth in Rule 23,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, finally certifies, for
purposes of settlement only, the Settlement Class defined
as follows:
"All persons in the State of Florida who have been
sentenced to death and are in the custody of the Florida
Department of Corrections (FDC)."
3. The members of the Settlement Class are identified on the
List of Class Members attached to the Final Approval
Motion as Exhibit 3.
4. The Court finds that adequate notice of the settlement was
provided to the Settlement Class in a reasonable manner
and as directed in the Preliminary Approval Order. The
notice constituted the best notice practicable under the
circumstances, was reasonably calculated to apprise
Settlement Class Members of the pendency of this action,
the terms of the settlement, and their right to object to
or comment on the settlement, and satisfied the
requirements of Rule 23 and due process.
5. The Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Costs and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof is granted.
The Court awards Class Counsel $125,000 as attorneys' fees
and costs and directs distribution of this amount to Class
Counsel in accordance with the terms of the Final
Settlement Agreement.
6. The Court expressly retains jurisdiction over this action,
all members of the Settlement Class, and Defendants, as
provided in the Final Settlement Agreement, and therefore,
for as long as it retains jurisdiction, the Court shall
oversee, and may decide all matters relating to the
administrative, implementation, interpretation, and
enforcement of the Final Settlement Agreement and this
Final Approval Order.
7. This case is dismissed and the Clerk of the Court is
directed to terminate all pending motions as moot and
close the file.
The Florida Department of Corrections operates state prisons in the
U.S. state of Florida. It has its headquarters in Florida's capital
of Tallahassee. The Florida Department of Corrections operates the
third largest state prison system in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39kTm4C at no extra charge.[CC]
FORD MOTOR: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Continued to June 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERNIE MIRAMONTES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, INC., and DOES 1 to 10, Case No.
2:22-cv-00300-RGK-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner
entered an order on stipulation to vacate the 90-day deadline for
motion for class certification.
The deadline to file the Motion for Class Certification is
continued to June 15, 2022.
Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, United States. It was founded
by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903. The company sells
automobiles and commercial vehicles under the Ford brand, and
luxury cars under its Lincoln luxury brand.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LdXtgl at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert L. Starr, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR
23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072
Calabasas, CA 91302
Telephone: (818) 225-9040
Facsimile: (818) 225-9042
E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael L. TurrillEsq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars
Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 785-4600
Facsimile: (310) 785-4601
E-mail: Michael.turrill@hoganlovells.com
FOX REHABILITATION: Conner Bid to Stay Denied
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN A. CONNER DPM,
P.C., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. FOX REHABILITATION SERVICES, P.C., Case No. 2:21-cv-01580-MMB
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Baylson entered an order
that:
1. The Plaintiff's motion to stay is denied. The Plaintiff
shall file his motion for class certification within 14
days of today's date.
2. The Defendant shall file its response within 21 days of
the date upon which Plaintiff files his motion for class
certification.
3. The Plaintiff shall file his reply, limited to fifteen
pages double-spaced, within 14 days of the Defendant's
Response.
4. All discovery is stayed pending the completion of this
briefing schedule.
5. Additionally, the parties shall meet and confer regarding
electronically stored information (ESI) and shall file a
joint ESI discovery protocol within 30 days of today's
date. If the parties cannot agree on a joint ESI discovery
protocol, this Court shall appoint a Special Master to
oversee the discovery issues in this case.
Fox Rehabilitation provides rehabilitation services.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LcKknI at no extra charge.[CC]
GMO-Z.COM TRUST: Donovan Sues Over Cryptocurrency Trading Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH DONOVAN; and HUSSIEN KASSFY, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. GMO-Z.COM TRUST COMPANY,
INC.; COINBASE GLOBAL, INC.; and COINBASE INC., Defendants, Case
No. 4:22-cv-02826-YGR (N.D. Cal., May 12, 2022) alleges violation
of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
According to the complaint, GYEN is a cryptocurrency issued by the
Defendant GMO Trust and traded on the exchange operated by the
Defendant Coinbase. To promote GYEN, Coinbase mimicked GMO Trust's
claims that GYEN was pegged one-to-one in value to the yen. Both
entities knew, based on a prior destabilizing event, that GYEN's
peg to the yen was prone to break and that such an event would be
likely, if not certain, when GYEN opened for trading on Coinbase.
Both entities withheld this information from investors.
In November 2021, when Coinbase first allowed GYEN trading on its
exchange, the asset immediately came untethered from the yen and
rose sharply in value. Investors placed orders believing the coin's
value was, as advertised, equal to the yen, but the tokens they
were purchasing were worth up to seven times more than the yen.
Just as suddenly, the GYEN's value plunged back to the peg -
falling 80 percent in one day.
As the GYEN's value was cratering back to the yen, Coinbase
compounded the harm by restricting many customers' ability to sell
the asset, then abruptly suspended all trading of the asset without
explanation. Both GMO Trust and Coinbase ignored or shrugged off
demands for an explanation and recompense, each insinuating that
the other was responsible for the collapse. In truth, both
contributed to the debacle as both deceived investors regarding the
nature of the asset.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged deceit, the Plaintiffs and
the Class, composed of hundreds of GYEN purchasers, collectively
lost untold millions in a matter of hours.
COINBASE GLOBAL, INC. is a regulated cryptocurrency company that
provides customers around the world with a platform for buying,
selling, transferring, and storing digital assets. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth Kramer, Esq.
Kevin Osborne, Esq.
Julie Erickson, Esq.
ERICKSON KRAMER OSBORNE LLP
44 Tehama Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 635-0631
Facsimile: (415) 599-8088
Email: elizabeth@eko.law
kevin@eko.law
julie@eko.law
GOLDEN STATE: Court Refers Back Bid to Certify Class in Trevino
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUAN TREVINO, et al., Plaintiffs v. GOLDEN STATE FC
LLC, et al., Defendants, Lead Case No. 1:18-cv-00120-DAD-BAM,
Member Case Nos. 1:18-cv-00121-DAD-BAM (Palma),
1:18-cv-00567-DAD-BAM (Avalos), 1:18-cv-01176-DAD-BAM (Hagman),
1:17-cv-01300-DAD-BAM (Ward) (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
refers the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the
Defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Brian Kriegler
to the assigned magistrate judge for the issuance of amended
findings and recommendations in light of the Ninth Circuit's en
banc decision in Olean II.
Plaintiffs Juan Trevino, Christopher Ward, Linda Quinteros, Romeo
Palma, Alberto Gianini and Juan C. Avalos, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, bring the consolidated class
action against Defendants Golden State FC, LLC (now known as
Amazon.com Services LLC), Amazon.com, Inc., and Amazon Fulfillment
Services, Inc. (now known as Amazon.com Services LLC)
(collectively, "Amazon").
The Plaintiffs moved for class certification pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). The motion was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe for
issuance of findings and recommendations in accordance with 28
U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Amazon relatedly moved to
exclude the testimony and opinions of the Plaintiffs' expert Dr.
Brian Kriegler, which the Plaintiffs had submitted in support of
their pending motion for class certification. Amazon's motion was
heard in conjunction with the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
On June 8, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
recommendations, recommending that the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification be granted in part and denied in part and that
Amazon's motion to exclude the Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Kriegler be
denied as having been rendered moot. Those findings and
recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice
that any objections thereto were to be filed within 14 days after
service. The Plaintiffs filed objections on June 22, 2021, and
Amazon filed a response to those objections on July 2, 2021.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental
authority on Aug. 9, 2021, in which they pointed out that on Aug.
3, 2021, the Ninth Circuit vacated its original decision in Olean
Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 993
F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2021) (Olean I) and granted a rehearing en
banc.
The Plaintiffs contend that the pending findings and
recommendations rely extensively on the now vacated decision in
Olean I, which had vacated and remanded the district court's
granting of motions for class certification, in recommending the
denial of certification as to certain classes in the case. On Aug.
23, 2021, the Defendants filed a response to the Plaintiffs' notice
of supplemental authority, in which they argued that the reasoning
and analysis in the pending findings and recommendations remained
correct even without reliance on the Olean I decision.
On Aug. 27, 2021, Judge Drozd issued an order staying the case
pending the final decision from the Ninth Circuit in Olean. The
parties were directed to file a status report with the court within
14 days of the Ninth Circuit's issuance of a decision in Olean
Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC (No.
19-56514) (Olean II). On April 8, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued
the en banc opinion in Olean II. On rehearing en banc the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of class
certification.
In light of this new en banc opinion, on April 12, 2022, the
Plaintiffs filed a notice with the court requesting that the court
"lifts its stay and considers and applies Olean II's holdings in
its de novo review of the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendations
and the Plaintiffs' Objections thereto." On April 13, 2022, the
parties filed a joint status report, in which the Defendants
requested the opportunity to file supplemental briefing addressing
the decision in Olean II.
As a result of the potential changed circumstances stemming from
the Olean II decision as it applies to the pending findings and
recommendations, Judge Drozd will not adopt the findings and
recommendations at this time, but instead will refer the matter
back to the assigned magistrate judge for consideration of further
briefing and the issuance of amended findings and recommendations
if necessary.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 636
(b)(1)(C), Judge Drozd has conducted a de novo review of the case.
Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the
objections, he declines to adopt the pending findings and
recommendations at this time. Instead, out of an abundance of
caution, the pending motion for class certification will be
referred back to the magistrate judge for further consideration in
light of the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Olean II.
Accordingly, Judge Drozd declines to adopt the findings and
recommendations issued on June 8, 2021. He refers the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and the Defendants' motion to
exclude the testimony of Dr. Kriegler to the assigned magistrate
judge for the issuance of amended findings and recommendations in
light of the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision in Olean II.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 4, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p85w42z from Leagle.com.
GREENIX PEST: Hutt Seeks Extension of Time to File Reply
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kenneth Hutt v. Greenix
Pest Control LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01108-SDM-EPD (S.D.
Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his
fourteen-day extension of time to file a Reply to Defendant's
Memorandum Contra Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification
due to work load issues.
The Plaintiff has received one previous fourteen-day extension of
time. The Plaintiff’s counsel has consulted with the Defendant's
counsel who has agreed to not oppose this motion. The Plaintiff
requests that this court grant it a fourteen-day extension of time
to plead. The proposed new date is May 27, 2022.
Greenix provides pest control and animal management in the United
States.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 27,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LaYINd
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emily J. Lewis, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF EMILY J. LEWIS LLC
5650 Blazer Parkway, Suite 100
Dublin, OH 43017
Telephone: (614) 734-6270
Facsimile: 614-734-7270
E-mail: ejl@elewislaw.com
HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Certify Class in Sanchez Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PABLO SANCHEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. HEARST
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-05147-VC (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denies the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.
Pablo Sanchez and Violet Alvarez sued Hearst, seeking to represent
a class of similarly situated workers and claiming that Hearst
violated California law by misclassifying them as independent
contractors rather than employees. Hearst publishes and distributes
newspapers in the San Francisco Bay Area, including (among others)
the San Francisco Chronicle. Sanchez and Alvarez served as
newspaper dealers, having signed agreements to pick up and deliver
papers for Hearst. They assert a series of claims under California
state law for Hearst's alleged misclassification and ask for
damages, penalties, and injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs Sanchez and Alvarez move for class certification. They
seek to certify a class of everyone "who personally delivered
newspapers for Hearst solely pursuant to a contractor home delivery
agreement in the State of California" since July of 2016. The
proposed class consists of 57 people. The parties spar primarily
over whether common questions predominate and whether class
treatment is a superior method of adjudicating the dispute.
Because the Plaintiffs have not shown on this record that there are
not significant differences between class members -- or, if there
are significant differences, how they could be handled at trial --
Judge Chhabria denies the motion to certify the class.
All agree that the question whether Hearst misclassified Sanchez
and Alvarez turns on an application of California's Borello test,
which explains that the "determination of employee or
independent-contractor status is one of fact." Whether an employer
retains the right to control the manner and means of work is the
"most important" factor. But secondary factors play into the
equation too. Most relevant for today's purposes is "whether the
one performing services is engaged in a distinct occupation or
business."
Judge Chhabria explains that the proposed class includes only those
home delivery workers who signed contractor home delivery
agreements with Hearst. But the record suggests there may be
significant variation in how the proposed class members chose to
meet their end of the bargain. These potentially significant
variations in subcontracting behavior preclude a finding that
common issues predominate.
At least on this record, there are doubts as to whether the
misclassification issue can be decided on a classwide basis. There
may be efficient ways to handle the variations that appear to exist
between the proposed class members in the case such that certifying
the class—or certifying defined subclasses -- will prove
appropriate. But, Judge Chhabria holds that the Plaintiffs have not
identified suitable subclasses, nor have they shown that there are
not significant differences between class members -- differences
that could well be material in determining liability. The variation
in subcontracting arrangements looms as a significant liability
issue, and the Plaintiffs have not adequately explained how that
issue could be handled in a class action trial (whether through the
creation of subclasses or in some other way).
The Plaintiffs argue that just because class members might have
hired helpers does not mean Hearst is shielded from liability. They
cite Martel v. Hearst Communications, Inc. for the proposition that
"the ability to subcontract is not dispositive of control." 468
F.Supp.3d 1212, 1216 (N.D. Cal. 2020).
True enough -- Borello itself emphasized that no one factor
dictates the outcome. But, Judge Chhabria finds that at class
certification, the question is whether it is likely that liability
can be adjudicated on a classwide basis, or whether individual
differences instead preclude common treatment. The Court must look
ahead to the trial. If one factor looms large in the context of a
particular case, and if it could affect the verdict, and if there
is significant variation among class members as to that factor,
there are potential problems in terms of predominance and
superiority. At least on this record, there is a serious risk that
variations in subcontracting behavior would be important at trial.
The motion for class certification is denied. Denial is without
prejudice because there is a reasonable possibility that a class
could be certified on a stronger showing, and because the
additional factual development needed to reach that decision point
would not be unduly burdensome.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 4, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5n98amdc from Leagle.com.
HENLEY PACIFIC: Mora Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAVIER MORA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HENLEY PACIFIC, LLC and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 22CV-00809, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Merced, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 11,
2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-00571-JLT-EPG to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to pay lawful wages, failure to provide lawful
meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to provide
lawful rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to pay
employee expenses, failure to timely pay wages during employment,
failure to timely pay wages at termination, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, and unfair competition.
Henley Pacific, LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered
in Paramount, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Amy Todd-Gher, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101-3577
Telephone: (619) 232-0441
Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
E-mail: atodd-gher@littler.com
ICON BURGER: Sheth Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
VIJAY SHETH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ICON BURGER ACQUISITION LLC; SMASHBURGER
ACQUISITION-SO CAL LLC, SMASHBURGER ACQUISITION - SAN FRANCISCO
LLC, SMASHBURGER ACQUISITION - SAN DIEGO LLC, SMASHBURGER
ACQUISITION - SACRAMENTO LLC, and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 22STCV15786 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
May 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act
including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest
periods, failure to provide suitable resting facilities, unpaid
minimum wages and overtime wages, inaccurate wage statements,
failure to provide proper sick leave, failure to reimburse business
expenses, failure to provide suitable seating, failure to pay for
all hours worked, failure to timely pay wages, and unlawful
criminal and financial background checks.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook on January
24, 2019 and he was promoted as a shift manager in March 2020.
Icon Burger Acquisition LLC is an owner and operator of a
Smashburger fast-food restaurant in California.
Smashburger Acquisition-So Cal LLC is an owner and operator of a
Smashburger fast-food restaurant in California.
Smashburger Acquisition - San Francisco LLC is an owner and
operator of a Smashburger fast-food restaurant in California.
Smashburger Acquisition - San Diego LLC is an owner and operator of
a Smashburger fast-food restaurant in California.
Smashburger Acquisition - Sacramento LLC is an owner and operator
of a Smashburger fast-food restaurant in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
Jamie Serb, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 496-5818
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
jamie@crosnerlegal.com
ILLINOIS TOOL: Faces Russell Suit Over Mismanaged Retirement Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STACY RUSSELL, JAVIER CASTANEDA, QUEEN STINSON, GARRETT MAGEE and
STEPHEN E. RICHEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC., THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC., THE ILLINOIS TOOL
WORKS, INC. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS INVESTMENT COMMITTEE and JOHN DOES
1-30, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02492 (N.D. Ill., May 11, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for breaches of the
fiduciary duty of prudence and failure to adequately monitor other
fiduciaries pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA).
According to the complaint, the Defendants breached the duties they
owed to the ITW Savings and Investment Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and
to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, (1) failing
to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment
portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was
prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain funds in the
Plan despite the availability of identical or similar investment
options with lower costs and/or better performance histories; and
(3) failing to control the Plan's recordkeeping costs. The
Defendants failed to utilize the lowest cost share class for many
of the mutual funds within the Plan despite their lower fees. As a
result of the Defendants' alleged mismanagement of the Plan, the
Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered significant losses.
Illinois Tool Works, Inc. is a global industrial company, with its
principal place of business located at 155 Harlem Avenue, Glenview,
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 233-4101
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com
- and –
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4101
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
ILLINOIS: Davis Bid to Certify Class Tossed as Moot
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Davis v. Illinois
Department of Human Services, Case No. 2:18-cv-02246 (C.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge Colin Stirling Bruce entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class as moot while granting leave to
refile following the Court's ruling on the pending motion for
summary judgment.
In her motion to reconsider, the Plaintiff Davis argues that even
if the court grants summary judgment with respect to herself,
"there still remains another Class Plaintiff, Antoinette Burns."
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, however, seeks judgment
with respect to both Plaintiff Davis and Plaintiff Burns. Thus, as
the Court observed in its prior Order, if the Court grants the
Motion for Summary Judgment, the case will be terminated.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Davis' Motion for Reconsideration is denied,
the Court says.
The suit alleges violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The Illinois Department of Human Services is the department of the
Illinois state government responsible for providing a wide variety
of safety net services to Illinois residents in poverty, who are
facing other economic challenges, or who have any of a variety of
disabilities.[CC]
INMAR INC: MDI Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MR. DEE'S INC., RETAIL
MARKETING SERVICES, INC., and CONNECTICUT FOOD ASSOCIATION, v.
INMAR, INC., CAROLINA MANUFACTURER's SERVICES, INC., CAROLINA
SERVICES, and CAROLINA COUPON CLEARING, INC., Case No.
1:19-cv-00141-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Court entered an order denying
without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for class certification.
This is a putative class action in which the Plaintiffs allege
Defendants "conspired to allocate customers and markets and to fix
prices" in violation of section of the Sherman Act.
Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits "every contract, combination
or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several
States, or with foreign nations."
The Plaintiffs seek certification of two classes:
(1) a class of manufacturers that directly paid observably
higher CCC or IOS shipping fees during the class period
(April 11, 2001 through March 28, 2007), identified; and
(2) a class of retailers that directly paid observably
higher CCC or IOS shipping fees during the class period,
identified. The Plaintiffs filed a brief in support of
their motion.
Inmar develops technology and data analytics services.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wuHZz2 at no extra charge.[CC]
JUST A SLICE: McLeod's Appeal From Atty. Fees' Ruling Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal filed by Savannah McLeod from a court ruling approving a
settlement in the lawsuit entitled SAVANNAH McLEOD, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. JUST A
SLICE PIZZA LLC d/b/a "Domino's Pizza," WOW Pizza LLC and MICHAEL
TINGEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00295-LCB-LPA, in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina at
Greensboro, has been dismissed.
The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
North Carolina Wage and Hour Act to recover unpaid minimum wages
owed to the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers
employed by the Defendants at its Domino's stores.
The Defendants employ delivery drivers, who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizzas and other food items to their
customers. However, the Plaintiff alleges that instead of
reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs
of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed
method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an
unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the
expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause
their wages to fall below the federal and state minimum wage during
some or all workweeks.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 17, 2021, the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
issued a preliminary approval of the parties' settlement agreement.
The Court held that at the Final Approval Hearing, it will
determine whether, and in what amount, attorney's fees, costs, and
expenses should be awarded to Class Counsel, and whether, and in
what amount, service awards should be made to Plaintiffs.
On April 14, 2022, Judge Loretta C. Biggs entered its order
approving the Final Settlement, and further ruled that the
Plaintiff's Counsel is awarded a reasonable attorneys' fee of
$48,980. The Fee as outlined in the Settlement Agreement shall be
reduced and paid consistent with the Order, Judge Biggs opined.
The Plaintiff sought a review of Judge Biggs's ruling.
The appellate case is captioned as Savannah McLeod v. WOW Pizza
LLC, Case No. 22-1496, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, filed on May 5, 2022.
However, a stipulated motion to voluntarily dismiss was filed by
the parties. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal on May 18,
2022, upon such terms as have been agreed to by the parties.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant SAVANNAH MCLEOD, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated persons, is represented by:
Jesse Forester, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 North Saint Paul Street, Ste 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
- and -
Jacob Modla, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JASON E. TAYLOR
115 Elk Avenue
Rock Hill, SC 29730
Telephone: (803) 328-0898
E-mail: jmodla@jasonetaylor.com
Defendants-Appellees WOW PIZZA LLC and MICHAEL TINGEN are
represented by:
Kevin Joseph Dalton, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
P. O. Box 36775
Charlotte, NC 28236-0000
Telephone: (704) 334-4565
E-mail: kdalton@fisherphillips.com
- and -
Matthew R. Korn, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
P. O. Box 11612
Columbia, SC 29211-1612
Telephone: (803) 255-0000
JUUL LABS: DeKalb County Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis in Ind.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DEKALB COUNTY CENTRAL UNITED SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.
F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02791 (N.D. Cal., May 11,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Indiana Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis.
DeKalb County Central United School District is a public school
district with its administrative offices located in Waterloo,
Indiana.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, New Castle Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
NEW CASTLE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A
PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02793 (N.D. Cal., May 11,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law
and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
New Castle Community School Corporation is a public school district
with its administrative offices located in New Castle, Indiana.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
KROGER CO: Loses Bid to Strike Womick's Class Allegations
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY WOMICK,
Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
THE KROGER CO., Case No. 3:21-cv-00574-NJR (S.D. Ill.), the Court
entered an order denying the Motion to Strike Plaintiff Anthony
Womick's Class Allegations.
The Court cannot conclude that Kroger's proposed class is overbroad
or unascertainable. As discovery progresses, the class definition
may need refinement -- but striking the allegation at this stage
would be improper because it provides Kroger with notice of the
class Womick will seek to certify.
Womick alleges that Kroger manufactures, packages, advertises,
distributes, and sells various types of ground coffee under its own
private label brand in canisters. Kroger represents the number of
cups that can be made depending on the size of the canisters:
-- The 11.5-ounce (326 g.) canisters represent they can make
about 90 cups.
-- The 24-ounce (680 g.) canister represents they can make
about 185 cups.
-- The 25-ounce (708 g.) canisters represent they can make
about 195 cups.
-- The 29-ounce (822 g.) canisters represent they can make
about 225 cups.
-- The 30.5-ounce (864 g.) canisters represent they can make
about 235 cups.
Brewing instructions on the back of Kroger's canisters provide two
methods: (1) to make one cup, the directions state the consumer is
to use one rounded tablespoon of coffee for each six fluid ounces
of cold water; and (2) to make ten cups, the
consumer is to use a half cup of coffee.
Womick asserts these representations are false even when following
Kroger's brewing instructions. Following Kroger's instruction to
use one rounded tablespoon, the 30.5-ounce canisters "will produce
no more than, and probably less than,"
approximately 173 cups of coffee, not 235 cups as the canister
indicated. Womick provided the below table showing the maximum
number of cups Kroger represents can be made using the one-cup
method, compared to the actual maximum number that the canister
will make using a 5-gram, not rounded, tablespoon, along with the
difference.
Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and
multi-department stores throughout the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NasGlS at no extra charge.[CC]
LANIER INC: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Allen Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, DANIEL ALLEN, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. LANIER, INC. and MICHAEL H. LANIER,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00268-jdp (W.D. Wis., May 12, 2022) is
brought by the Plaintiff as a collective action complaint against
the Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
February 2018 to July 2020 as a delivery driver at the Defendants'
Domino's store located in Eau Claire, WI.
According to the complaint, the Defendants required their delivery
drivers to maintain and pay for safe, legally-operable, and insured
automobiles when delivering pizza and other food items. However,
the Defendants have employed a reimbursement policy which
reimburses their delivery drivers on a per-mile basis that equates
to below the IRS business mileage reimbursement rate and/or much
less than a reasonable approximation of their automobile expenses.
As a result of the Defendants' failure to reasonably approximate
the amount of their delivery drivers' automobile expenses, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated delivery drivers' net wages
diminished beneath the federal minimum wage requirements.
On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated delivery
drivers, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, liquidated
damages, litigation costs and attorney's fees, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court deems fair
and equitable.
Lanier, Inc. operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.
Michael H. Lanier is the director of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Haynie, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
400 N. St. Paul St., Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel: (214) 210-2100
Fax: (469) 399-1070
E-mail: matthew@foresterhaynie.com
MDL 2548: Final Judgment Issued in Trading Suit as to Deutsche Bank
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: COMMODITY EXCHANGE, INC., GOLD FUTURES AND
OPTIONS TRADING LITIGATION. This Document Relates to All Actions,
Case No. 14-MD-2548 (VEC), No. 14-MC-2548 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Valirie E. Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal
as to Deutsche Bank AG.
The matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to the
Plaintiffs' application for final approval of the settlement set
forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Deutsche
Bank AG, dated Aug. 24, 2016. Judge Caproni has considered all
papers filed and proceedings held therein and is fully informed of
these matters.
Based on the record before the Court, Judge Caproni certified
solely for settlement purposes the following Settlement Class: "All
persons or entities who during the period from Jan. 1, 2004 through
June 30, 2013, either (A) sold any physical gold or financial or
derivative instrument in which gold is the underlying reference
asset, including, but not limited to, those who sold (i) gold
bullion, gold bullion coins, gold bars, gold ingots or any form of
physical gold, (ii) gold futures contracts in transactions
conducted in whole or in part on COMEX or any other exchange
operated in the United States, (iii) shares in Gold exchange-traded
funds (ETFs), (iv) gold call options in transactions conducted
over-the-counter or in whole or in part on COMEX or any other
exchange operated in the United States; (v) gold spot, gold
forwards or gold swaps over-the-counter; or (B) bought gold put
options in transactions conducted over-the-counter or in whole or
in part on COMEX or on any other exchange operated in the United
States."
The law firms of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and Berger
Montague PC are appointed, solely for settlement purposes, as the
Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class.
Plaintiffs Compania Minera Dayton SCM, Frank Flanagan, KPFF
Investment, Inc., Duane Lewis, Larry Dean Lewis, Kevin Maher,
Robert Marechal, Blanche McKennon, Kelly McKennon, Thomas Moran, J.
Scott Nicholson, and David Windmiller are appointed, solely for
settlement purposes, as the class representatives for the
Settlement Class.
Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Judge Caproni granted final approval of the Settlement set forth in
the Settlement Agreement on the basis that the settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate as to, and in the best interests of, all
Settlement Class Members, and is in compliance with all applicable
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Except as to any individual claim of those Persons (identified in
Exhibit 1) who have validly and timely requested exclusion from the
Settlement Class, the Action and all claims contained therein, as
well as all of the Released Claims, against Deutsche Bank AG by the
Plaintiffs and Releasing Parties are dismissed with prejudice. The
Settling Parties are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise
provided in the Settlement Agreement and the orders of the Court.
10. The Opt-Outs identified in Exhibit 1 hereto have timely and
validly requested exclusion from the Settlement Class and are
excluded from the Settlement Class for all purposes, are not bound
by this Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal, and may not make any
claim or receive any benefit from the Settlement Agreement or the
HSBC agreement being jointly administered with this Settlement
Agreement.
Without affecting the finality of the Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal in any way, the Court retains continuing and exclusive
jurisdiction over: (a) implementation of the Settlement set forth
in the Settlement Agreement; (b) any award, distribution, or
disposition of the Settlement Fund, including interest earned
thereon; (c) hearing and determining applications for attorneys'
fees, costs, expenses including expert fees, and incentive awards;
and (d) all Settling Parties, Released Parties, and Releasing
Parties for the purpose of construing, enforcing, and administering
the Settlement Agreement.
In the event that the Settlement does not become effective in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, then the
Final Order and Judgment of Dismissal will be rendered null and
void and will be vacated.
The Settling Parties are directed to consummate the Settlement
according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Without further
Court order, the Settling Parties may agree to reasonable
extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the
Settlement Agreement.
There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal. The Clerk of the Court is
respectfully directed to enter this Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure immediately. The Clerk of Court is also respectfully
directed to terminate Defendant Deutsche Bank AG.
The Court's consideration and approval of the Settlement is
independent of the Court's consideration and approval of the Plan
of Allocation, the fee award, and the expenses award.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 4, 2022 Final Judgment & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/mvjcen3p from Leagle.com.
MDL 2548: Final Judgment Issued in Trading Suit as to HSBC Bank plc
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: COMMODITY EXCHANGE, INC., GOLD FUTURES AND
OPTIONS TRADING LITIGATION. This Document Relates to All Actions,
Case No. 14-MD-2548 (VEC), No. 14-MC-2548 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Valerie E. Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal
as to HSBC Bank plc.
The matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to the
Plaintiffs' application for final approval of the settlement set
forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with HSBC Bank
plc, dated Nov. 10, 2020. Judge Caproni has considered all papers
filed and proceedings held herein and is fully informed of these
matters.
Based on the record before her, Judge Caproni certified solely for
settlement purposes the following Settlement Class: "All persons or
entities who during the period from January 1, 2004 through June
30, 2013, either (A) sold any physical gold or financial or
derivative instrument in which gold is the underlying reference
asset, including, but not limited to, those who sold (i) gold
bullion, gold bullion coins, gold bars, gold ingots or any form of
physical gold, (ii) gold futures contracts in transactions
conducted in whole or in part on COMEX or any other exchange
operated in the United States, (iii) shares in Gold exchange-traded
funds (ETFs), (iv) gold call options in transactions conducted
over-the-counter or in whole or in part on COMEX or any other
exchange operated in the United States; (v) gold spot, gold
forwards or gold swaps over-the-counter; or (B) bought gold put
options in transactions conducted over-the-counter or in whole or
in part on COMEX or on any other exchange operated in the United
States."
The law firms of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and Berger
Montague P.C. are appointed, solely for settlement purposes, as the
Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class.
Plaintiffs Compania Minera Dayton SCM, Frank Flanagan, KPFF
Investment, Inc., Duane Lewis, Larry Dean Lewis, Kevin Maher,
Robert Marechal, Blanche McKennon, Kelly McKennon, Thomas Moran, J.
Scott Nicholson, and David Windmiller are appointed, solely for
settlement purposes, as the class representatives for the
Settlement Class.
Except as to any individual claim of those Persons (identified in
Exhibit 1) who have validly and timely requested exclusion from the
Settlement Class, the Action and all claims contained therein, as
well as all of the Released Claims, against HSBC Bank plc by the
Plaintiffs and Releasing Parties are dismissed with prejudice. The
Settling Parties are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise
provided in the Settlement Agreement and the orders of the Court.
Without affecting the finality of the Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal in any way, the Court retains continuing and exclusive
jurisdiction over: (a) implementation of the Settlement set forth
in the Settlement Agreement; (b) any award, distribution, or
disposition of the Settlement Fund, including interest earned
thereon; (c) hearing and determining applications for attorneys'
fees, costs, expenses including expert fees, and incentive awards;
and (d) all Settling Parties, Released Parties, and Releasing
Parties for the purpose of construing, enforcing, and administering
the Settlement Agreement.
In the event that the Settlement does not become effective in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, then the
Final Order and Judgment of Dismissal will be rendered null and
void and will be vacated.
The Settling Parties are directed to consummate the Settlement
according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Without further
Court order, the Settling Parties may agree to reasonable
extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the
Settlement Agreement.
There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal. The Clerk of the Court is
respectfully directed to enter the Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure immediately. The Clerk of Court is also respectfully
directed to terminate Defendant HSBC Bank plc.
The Court's consideration and approval of the Settlement is
independent of its consideration and approval of the Plan of
Allocation, the fee award, and the expenses award.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 4, 2022 Final Judgment & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/2mjrcmt6 from Leagle.com.
MEREDITH CORP: Faces Rancourt Suit Over Personal Info Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT RANCOURT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MEREDITH CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-10696 (D. Mass., May 6, 2022) is a class action suit
brought against Defendant for violations of the Video Privacy
Protection Act and the Mass. Gen. Laws.
The Defendant develops, owns, and operates a mobile application,
titled "Allrecipes," which hosts and delivers "[t]housands of
recipe videos to guide you with step-by-step cooking
instructions."
According to the complaint, unbeknownst to Plaintiff and members of
the Classes, Defendant knowingly and intentionally discloses its
users' personally identifiable information --including a record of
every video viewed by the user -- to unrelated third parties.
The Plaintiff downloaded the Allrecipes App on his Android phone in
May 2017. When Plaintiff set up the Allrecipes App, he enabled
location services and created an account. At all times relevant,
Plaintiff never consented, agreed, nor otherwise permitted the
Allrecipes App to disclose his personal identifiable information to
third parties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Reardon, Jr.
REARDON SCANLON LLP
45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 955-9455
Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com
- and -
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
- and -
Christopher R. Reilly, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 679-9006
E-mail: creilly@bursor.com
MITEK SYSTEMS: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Johnson Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Joshua Johnson, individually and on behalf of all
individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mitek Systems, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 22 C 349 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Ronald A. Guzman of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, denied the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration.
I. Background
The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. ("BIPA"). Mitek
offers, among other things, biometric verification services. In
December 2021, the Plaintiff registered with one of Mitek's
clients, Hyrecar, a car rental service. After signing up on
Hyrecar's app using his email address, the Plaintiff was redirected
to a page where he was required to upload his driver's license and
photograph. Mitek used its facial-recognition technology to verify
the Plaintiff's age and identity.
Mitek filed the instant motion to compel pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), asserting that the Plaintiff is
required to arbitrate his BIPA claim. In support, Mitek points out
that when Plaintiff registered for Hyrecar, he agreed to
individually arbitrate "all claims and disputes in connection with"
Hyrecar's Terms of Service."
II. Analysis
Enforcement of an arbitration clause is governed by the Federal
Arbitration Act ("FAA") 9 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq. A party moving
to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA must demonstrate: (1) the
existence of a written agreement to arbitrate, (2) a dispute within
the scope of the arbitration agreement, and (3) a refusal to
arbitrate by another party.
The Agreement includes the arbitration provision. It further states
that additional information regarding the information collection
and usage practices can be found in the Privacy Policy. According
to Mitek, the Plaintiff was twice presented with and consented to
Hyrecar's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy before providing his
driver's license and photograph to Hyrecar.
Mitek asserts that the Plaintiff's claim under BIPA falls within
the broad terms of the arbitration provision, which state, in part,
that "all claims and disputes (excluding claims for injunctive or
other relief as set forth below) in connection with the Agreement
or the use of the Platform or Service." According to Mitek, because
the Plaintiff provided his photograph to Hyrecar during its
registration process, and Mitek used the photograph to verify his
identity, then the Plaintiff's BIPA claim is covered by the
arbitration provision. While the Agreement containing the
arbitration provision was between the Plaintiff and Hyrecar, Mitek
asserts that it is entitled to enforce the arbitration provision
both as an intended third-party beneficiary and pursuant to the
principle of equitable estoppel.
A. Third-Party Beneficiary
Mitek asserts that Hyrecar and the Plaintiff intended the
arbitration provision to benefit and obligate Mitek by stating that
"this Arbitration Agreement applies to you [i.e., Plaintiff] and
the Company, as well as all authorized or unauthorized users or
beneficiaries of services or goods provided under the Agreement."
According to Mitek, it is a beneficiary because it "receives money
from Hyrecar for performing services that are necessary to the
contractual relationship between Hyrecar and its customers."
Judge Guzman finds that Mitek has not overcome the strong
presumption against conferring third-party beneficiary status on
nonsignatories. He finds that if Hyrecar intended Mitek to be
included in the parties to whom the arbitration provision applies,
it could easily have stated so expressly. It did not. Even if
Hyrecar and the Plaintiff knew that Mitek would obtain some
benefit, this is insufficient to confer third-party beneficiary
status. In addition to these factors indicating that Mitek is not a
third-party beneficiary of the arbitration provision, Hyrecar's
Terms of Service expressly list those to whom the arbitration
provision applies. While this point does not by itself conclusively
exclude Mitek as a third-party beneficiary, it is additionally
persuasive in light of the other details already described.
B. Equitable Estoppel
Mitek also contends that Plaintiff is equitably estopped from
pursuing his claims against it. Mitek contends that it
"detrimentally relied on the Plaintiff's representations when he
consented to be bound by Hyrecar's Terms of Service and Privacy
Policy."
Judge Guzman opines that this assertion contradicts both Hyrecar's
Terms of Service, which state that users' interactions with "Third
Party Platforms" are governed by the third-party's terms and
conditions, and Hyrecar's Privacy Policy, which expressly states
that Hyrecar "does not control third party websites," acknowledges
that third parties "have their own rules about the collection, use
and disclosure" of the user's information, and directs users to
"read the terms of use and privacy policies of the other websites
that you visit."
Moreover, Mitek fails to demonstrate reliance. While Mitek argues
that it detrimentally relied on the consent the Plaintiff provided
to Hyrecar to collect his biometric data for the purpose of
identity verification and to use third-party providers to provide
that service, it fails to point to any evidence of that reliance.
Finally, Mitek's reference to "fundamental fairness" is unavailing.
Mitek fails to point to any case law that requires estopping the
Plaintiff from circumventing the arbitration provision by suing a
nonsignatory and nonbeneficiary -- especially here where the
challenge to the applicability of the arbitration provision was
successful.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons he stated, Judge Guzman denied Mitek's motion to
compel arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 4, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9v8bjn from
Leagle.com.
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Shortbread Cookies' Label "Deceptive," Howze Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ZILPHIA HOWZE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00351-JLS (W.D.N.Y., May 11, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation; fraud;
unjust enrichment; violation of New York General Business Law and
state consumer fraud acts; and breaches of express warranty,
implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular
purpose, and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its shortbread cookies under the Lorna Doone brand. The product's
representations are misleading to consumers because despite an
expectation that a product identified as shortbread contains some
butter, the product contains no butter. The product's ingredient
list reveals that instead of using any butter, it exclusively uses
vegetable shortening such as palm oil and canola oil. The product
also adds artificial flavor to imitate the flavor of butter. Had
the Plaintiff and Class members known the truth, they would not
have bought the product or would have paid less for it.
Mondelez Global LLC is a food company, with its principal place of
business in East Hanover, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
NASHVILLE BOOTING: Scheduling Order Entered in Ladd Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY LADD, et al., v.
NASHVILLE BOOTING, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00626 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Hon. Judge Alistair E. Newbern entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- The deadline to move for class June 17, 2022
certification is extended to:
-- Any response in opposition to class certification shall be
filed no later than 28 days after service of the motion.
-- Any reply brief shall be filed no later than 14 days after
service of the response.
-- The deadline for completion of July 29, 2022
fact discovery is extended to:
-- The deadline for the completion August 19, 2022
of expert discovery is Extended to:
-- A telephonic case management August 25, 2022
conference is set on:
A copy of the Court's order dated April 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3l7vsw7 at no extra charge.[CC]
NOBILIS HEALTH: Yang Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit to 5th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Zhang Yang filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit entitled ZHANG YANG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NOBILIS HEALTH CORP., HARRY FLEMING,
DAVID YOUNG, KENNETH J. KLEIN, Case No. 4:19-cv-00145-ASH, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Nobilis securities between May 8, 2018 and
November 15, 2018, both dates inclusive. According to the
complaint, the Defendants 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, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company overstated its accounts receivables and revenue; (2)
consequently, the Company would be required to delay the filing of
its quarterly report on Form 10-Q; (3) such a delay would result in
the Company falling in non-compliance with the New York Stock
Exchange listing requirements; and (4) that, as a result the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
Lead Plaintiff Zhang Yang, by and through his counsel, currently
seeks a review from the District Court's Order denying his motion
for an indicative ruling pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure entered on April 1, 2022.
The appellate case is captioned as Yang v. Nobilis Health Corp., et
al., Case No. 22-20224, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit, filed on May 5, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Zhang Yang is represented by:
Omar Jafri, Esq.
POMERANTZ, L.L.P.
10 S. La Salle Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: ojafri@pomlaw.com
Defendants-Appellees Nobilis Health Corporation, Harry Fleming,
David Young, and Kenneth J. Klein are represented by:
Tyler Geoffrey Doyle, Esq.
SMYSER KAPLAN & VESELKA, L.L.P.
717 Texas Avenue
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 221-2358
NYC HARLEM: Medina Seeks Initial Approval of Proposed Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARISOL MEDINA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NYC
HARLEM FOODS INC, BRONX 163 FOODS INC., BRONX MARKET FOODS INC, NYC
143 FOODS INC, NYC 96 FOODS INC, NYC 89 FOODS INC, NYC PARK FOODS
INC, NYC 125 FOODS INC, NYC 159 FOODS INC, NYC 155 FOODS INC,
SUNNYSIDE BK QSR INC, NYC 116 BK QSR INC, NYC 116 FOODS INC, NYC
121 FOODS INC, NYC 114 FOODS INC, BRONX PROSPECT FOODS INC., NYC
145 FOODS INC., NYC LENOX FOODS INC., NYC 178 FOODS INC., BRONX 138
FOODS INC., RV EASTCHESTER FOODS INC., NYC 148 FOODS INC., NYC
LEXINGTON FOODS INC., NYC 161 FOODS INC., BRONX 170 FOODS INC.,
ANDHRA FOODS INC., SOMYA FOODS, INC., RVN FOODS INC., and SRINIVASA
RAO TUMMALAPENTA, individually, Case No. 1:21-cv-01321-VSB
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement
and certifying the settlement class;
2. appointing Plaintiffs' Counsel as class counsel; and
3. approving the Plaintiff's notice of proposed settlement of
class action lawsuit, together with such other and further
relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 28,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FHxEnL
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Bouklas, Esq.
357 Veterans Memorial Highway
Commack, NY 11725
Telephone: (516) 742-4949
E-mail: james@bglawny.com
OPTIONS HOME: Extension of Conditional Status Bid Filing Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EVAN MIHOCIK, On behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated individuals, v. OPTIONS HOME
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-04604-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the
Parties ask the Court that the May 17, 2022 deadline to complete
discovery be moved to June 24, 2022 and the deadlines for briefing
the motion for conditional certification be extended by 30 days as
follows:
Due Date
-- The Plaintiff's motion for August 29, 2022
conditional certification
-- The Defendant's response: September 29, 2022
-- The Plaintiff's reply: October 10, 2022
Options Home provides non-medical home care to the Columbus, Ohio,
area.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 27, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ldj6gA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
Brian R. Noethlich, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
bnoethlich@barkanmeizlish.com
- and -
Adam L. Slone, Esq.
BRIAN G. MILLER CO., L.P.A.
250 West Old Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 270
Worthington, OH 43085
Telephone: (614) 221-4035
Facsimile: (614) 987-7841
E-mail: als@bgmillerlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Tracy L. Turner, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF TRACY L. TURNER, LLC
7573 Ogden Woods Boulevard
New Albany, OH 43054
Telephone: (614) 657-3454
E-mail: tturner@tltlawoffice.com
OSCAR HEALTH: Faces Carpenter Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
LORIN CARPENTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OSCAR HEALTH, INC.; MARIO SCHLOSSER;
SIDDHARTHA SANKARAN; ARI FISCHEL; JEFFERY H. BOYD; JOEL CUTLER;
JOSHUA KUSHNER; TERI LIST; CHARLES E. PHILLIPS, JR.; DAVID PLOUFFE;
ELBERT O. ROBINSON, JR.; VANESSA A. WITTMAN; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO.
LLC; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; ALLEN & COMPANY LLC; WELLS FARGO
SECURITIES, LLC; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; BOFA
SECURITIES, INC.; COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC; LIONTREE ADVISORS LLC;
SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ & COMPANY, INC.; and SIEBERT WILLIAMS SHANK &
CO., LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03885 (S.D.N.Y., May 12,
2022) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Oscar Class A common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with the Company's March 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or the
"Offering"), seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants under
the Securities Act of 1933.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Registration
Statement filed by the Defendants with the Securities and Exchange
Commission was materially false and misleading and omitted to
state: (1) that Oscar was experiencing growing COVID-19 testing and
treatment costs; (2) that Oscar was experiencing growing net COVID
costs; (3) that Oscar would be negatively impacted by an
unfavorable prior year Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV)
result relating to 2019 and 2020; (4) that Oscar was on track to be
negatively impacted by significant SEP membership growth; and (5)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and lacked a reasonable basis.
By the commencement of this action, Oscar stock has traded as low
as $5.76 per share, a more than 85% decline from the $39.00 per
share IPO price.
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.
OSCAR HEALTH, INC. operates as a health insurance company. The
Company offers technology platform which uses personalized data to
drive real-time actionable insights and recommendations, such as
guiding members to the right doctor and hospital. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
Email: glinkh@glancylaw.com
- and -
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
PANORAMA ORTHOPEDICS: Faces Stanley FLSA Suit in D. Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------
SABRINA STANLEY and JUDY KOJETIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PANORAMA ORTHOPEDICS AND
SPINE CENTER, P.C. and PMG LLLP, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-01176-STV (D. Colo., May 11, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act including failure to pay
overtime premiums; failure to pay for all hours worked; failure to
pay all earned, vested and determinable wages, and unjust
enrichment.
Plaintiffs Stanley and Kojetin were employed by the Defendants as
hourly-paid business office employees from approximately March 2019
through approximately March 2022 and from approximately August 2021
through approximately February 2022, respectively.
Panorama Orthopedics and Spine Center, P.C. is a provider of
orthopedic medical care, with a principal place of business at 660
Golden Road Ridge Road, Suite 250, Golden, Colorado.
PMG LLLP is a limited liability limited partnership, with a
principal place of business at 660 Golden Road Ridge Road, Suite
250, Golden, Colorado. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brandt Milstein, Esq.
MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC
2400 Broadway, Suite B
Boulder, CO 80304
Telephone: (303) 440-8780
E-mail: brandt@milsteinturner.com
PARAMOUNT RECOVERY: Crews Seeks Extension of Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MCKAY CREWS v. PARAMOUNT
RECOVERY SYSTEMS, Case No. 3:20-cv-00864-SDD-SDJ (M.D.La.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines
set in its June 3, 2021 amended order as to the disclosure of
Expert Identities and Resumes by 30 days.
The new deadlines are proposed as follows:
a) Disclosure of identities and
resumes of experts for
class certification:
Plaintiff(s): May 27, 2022
Defendant(s): June 27, 2022
The parties are engaging in settlement discussions and this 30
extension will aid in those settlement discussions. The parties
have already completed a majority of their written fact discovery,
the Plaintiff says.
Paramount Recovery is a debt collection agency.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 27, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3a40q6p at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Raburn, Esq.
MCCARTY & RABURN, A CONSUMER LAW FIRM, PLLC
2931 Ridge Rd, Suite 101 No. 504
Rockwall, TX 75032
Telephone: (225) 412-2777
E-mail: jonathan@geauxlaw.com
PENSKE TRUCK: Underpays Mechanics, Phillips Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, MICHAEL PHILLIPS, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., L.P.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-01889 (E.D. Penn., May 13, 2022) is
brought by the Plaintiff as a collective action against the
Defendant to recover all relief available under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a mechanic since
approximately August 2018.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant did not compensate them
for the time they spent while on-call diagnosing vehicles'
mechanical problems and otherwise accomplish their work via
telephone. As a result, despite regularly working more than 40
hours per week, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
mechanics were not paid proper overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the Plaintiff adds.
The Plaintiff seeks unpaid wages and pre-judgment interest,
liquidated damages, litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys'
fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. is a global transportation services
provider. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Tel: (215) 884-2491
- and –
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Carter Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Tel: (361) 452-1279
- and –
William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
Tyler, TX 75703
Tel: (903) 596-7100
PIZZA BAKER: Settlement in Clark Partially Granted Initial OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD CLARK, on behalf of
himself and those similarly situated, v. PIZZA BAKER, INC., et al.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon
L. Marbley entered an order granting in part and denying in part
the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class and
collective action settlement.
The following proposed class is certified for settlement
purposes only:
"All non-exempt hourly employees of Precision Pizza LLC
and/or Lisa Burkett who received mileage reimbursement
related to the delivery of Domino's pizza (the "Proposed
Class").
The Class Period is from February 23, 2015 to January 26, 2021.
The Proposed Class is also certified for settlement purposes only,
as a collective under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
Pizza Baker is located in Logan, Ohio. This organization primarily
operates in the Pizzeria, Chain business / industry within the
eating and drinking places.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NapdE4 at no extra charge.[CC]
PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Rioux Suit Converted to Civil Case in D.N.H.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LEE ANN RIOUX, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PUBLISHERS CLEARING HOUSE and JOHN
DOE, Case No. 1:22-cv-00129-JL, was converted to a civil case in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire on May
11, 2022. Hon. Joseph N. Laplante is the case judge.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Publishers Clearing House is a direct marketing company that
markets merchandise and magazine subscriptions with sweepstakes and
prize-based games, headquartered in Jericho, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, appears pro se.
QUALITY HUTS: Vice Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unreimbursed Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID VICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUALITY HUTS, LLC, QUALITY HUTS EAST, LLC,
QUALITY HUTS INDIANAPOLIS, LLC, QUALITY HUTS MID ATLANTIC, LLC, and
QUALITY HUTS MIDWEST, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00374 (N.D.
Ind., May 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
their failure to reimburse the Plaintiff and similarly situated
delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the
business use of their vehicles in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery driver
at their Pizza Hut stores located in Goshen, Indiana and South
Bend, Indiana from approximately November 2013 to March 2020.
Quality Huts, LLC is an operator of Pizza Hut franchise stores in
Indiana.
Quality Huts East, LLC is an operator of Pizza Hut franchise stores
in Indiana.
Quality Huts Indianapolis, LLC is an operator of Pizza Hut
franchise stores in Indiana.
Quality Huts Mid Atlantic, LLC is an operator of Pizza Hut
franchise stores in Indiana.
Quality Huts Midwest, LLC is an operator of Pizza Hut franchise
stores in Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Corey Asay, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
333 W. Vine Street, Suite 1200
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (859) 286-8368
Facsimile: (859) 286-8384
E-mail: CAsay@forthepeople.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
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bennett, et al., Seek to Certify Class, Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER BENNETT, LAWRENCE
CATTI, JACOB CHERNOV, DIANA DANNELLY, CRAIG DVORAK, CLYDE FREEMAN,
VALERIE FUNARI, ARTHUR GOLDSMITH, EDIE GOLIKOV, LING GONG, DOLORES
HERRMANN, LONNIE HODGES, JR., MARVIN AND VICKI LESLIE, LILY MARTYN,
RYSZARD POJAWIS, JILL ROACH, CAROLYN SCOTT, and STEPHEN TIMM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01590-ES-MAH (D.N.J.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1) Certifying a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2);
2) Certifying specific subclasses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)
3) For an appointment of the 15 Class Representatives;
4) For appointment of Wolf Popper LLC as lead counsel for the
Class and Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP as
liaison counsel for the Class; and
5) For such other and further relief as to the Court appears
just and proper.
Quest Diagnostics is an American clinical laboratory. A Fortune 500
company, Quest operates in the United States, Puerto Rico, Mexico,
and Brazil. Quest also maintains collaborative agreements with
various hospitals and clinics across the globe.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 28, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lbomXK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey W. Herrmann, Esq.
Audra DePaolo, Esq.
COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN
HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
Park 80 West – Plaza One
250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
Telephone: (201) 845-9600
E-mail: jwh@njlawfirm.com
ad@njlawfirm.com
- and -
Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq.
David A. Nicholas, Esq.
Timothy D. Brennan, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 759-4600
E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com
dnicholas@wolfpopper.com
tbrennan@wolfpopper.com
MInsley-Pruitt@wolfpopper.com
QUINSTREET INC: Pizarro Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SHARON PIZARRO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUINSTREET, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:22-cv-02803 (N.D. Cal., May 12, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
In an attempt to promote its business, the Defendant has caused a
prerecorded voice message to be transmitted to the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number ending in 5392 on or about November 13,
2021. The Defendant's prerecorded messages allegedly included a
prerecorded voice which identified itself as calling from "Amone"
and asked the Plaintiff to call the Defendant back at 855-211-2530.
The Plaintiff asserts that he never provided the Defendant with her
prior express written consent to be contacted for marketing
purposes by prerecorded messages from the Defendant, says the
suit.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has also caused similar
prerecorded message to be sent to individuals using the names of
AmOne and/or GuideToLenders. As a result of the Defendant's
unsolicited prerecorded messages, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals have suffered additional harm in the form of
invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, and conversion, as well as inconvenience and
disruption to their daily life.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action complaint on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals
seeking for actual and statutory damages. The Plaintiff also seeks
an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all unsolicited call
activity without obtaining consent first and to otherwise protect
the interests of the Class, and such further and other relief as
the Court deems necessary.
Quinstreet, Inc. is a marketing company that sells consumer contact
information to lenders and even receives referral fees from
lenders. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park E., #1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (310) 438-5355
E-mail: Scott@Edelsberglaw.com
RICOLA USA: Davis Sues Over Mislabeled Cough Suppressant Lozenges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lacie Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Ricola USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-03071-SEM-KLM (C.D. Ill., May 8, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's false and misleading representations of its cough
suppressant and oral anesthetic lozenges which states that it's
"Made With Swiss Alpine Herbs" under the Ricola brand in violation
of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act, Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and State Consumer Fraud Acts.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff believed and expected the
product functioned as a cough suppressant and oral anesthetic due
to the presence of herbal ingredients because that is what the
representations said and implied on the front label and the absence
of any reference or statement elsewhere on the product. The
Plaintiff would not have purchased the product if she knew the
representations and omissions were false and misleading or would
have paid less for it, says the suit.
Based in Parsippany, New Jersey, Ricola USA, Inc. manufactures herb
cough drops.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
ROCKET COMPANIES: Michigan Court Amends Qaiyum's Case Caption
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ZOYA QAIYUM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROCKET COMPANIES, INC., JAY
FARNER, JULIE BOOTH, ROBERT WALTERS, and DANIEL GILBERT,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-11528 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Thomas L.
Ludington of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Northern Division, issued an order amending the case
caption.
In June 2021, Plaintiff Qaiyum brought the securities class action,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
against Defendants Rocket Companies, Inc. and some of its senior
officers and directors Jay Farner, Julie Booth, Robert Walters, and
Daniel Gilbert. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that the
Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), t(a) and 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.10b-5. The next month, District Judge Paul Borman
recused himself from the case under Section 455, then it was
randomly reassigned to District Judge Judith Levy.
In August 2021, six plaintiffs from later-filed Case No.
5:21-cv-11618 filed five motions to consolidate that case with the
present case, as well as to be appointed as the lead or co-lead
plaintiff under 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i), as amended by
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) -- ECF
Nos. 10 (Plaintiff Eric Asnara); 13 (Plaintiffs Richard Crosby
Elwell and Dennis R. Tragesser); 14 (Plaintiff Richard Batson); 15
(Plaintiff Carl Shupe); 16 (Plaintiff Lang Lee).
In April 2022, Judge Levy consolidated the cases under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2), but she did not determine which
plaintiff should be the lead plaintiff under the PSLRA. Two days
later, the case was reassigned to Judge Ludington.
On May 3, 2022, Plaintiff Qaiyum filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1),
dismissing all her claims against the Defendants. Yet numerous
other plaintiffs remain, including the five groups of plaintiffs
who have filed motions to be appointed as lead plaintiff.
Thus, Judge Ludington will amend the case caption to reflect the
remaining parties' proper names. Accordingly, he orders the Clerk
of the Court to amend the case caption to reflect that the
Plaintiff's name is "CARL SHUPE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated."
A full-text copy of the Court's May 4, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4yak35mx from Leagle.com.
RUST-OLEUM CORP: Osorio Suit Seeks Proper Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
RAMON B. OSORIO JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02419 (N.D. Ill., May 6, 2022) is a
collective action brought by the Plaintiff seeking to recover from
Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant did not include routine,
non-discretionary bonuses and premiums in calculating its hourly
employees' regular or overtime premium wage rates. As a result,
Plaintiff and the other hourly workers at Defendant's production
facilities in Vernon Hills, Illinois, who regularly worked over 40
hours per workweek, were always paid overtime wages calculated
based on a regular rate that did not include any of their earned
production bonuses or shift premiums.
The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Illinois who was a
maintenance mechanic, hourly production worker for Defendant from
January 2018 until February 2021.
Rust-Oleum Corporation manufactures and markets protective paints
and coatings. The Company retails varnishes, lacquers, industrial
roof repair coatings, enamels, and primers. Rust-Oleum serves
customers worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James B. Zouras, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
100 North Riverside, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 233-1550
E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street N.E., 3rd Floor
Washington, D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
- and -
David J. Cohen, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
604 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 873-4836
E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Class Notice for 2021 Claimants Approved in Fox
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS A. FOX, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF SAGINAW,
by its BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-11887-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Thomas L.
Ludington entered an order approving the Plaintiff's Proposed Class
Notice for the 2021 Claimants, as revised by this Court.
The Plaintiff is directed to make all necessary arrangements for
the immediate service of the revised class notice, the Court says.
For decades, Michigan's General Property Tax Act (GPTA) allowed a
"foreclosing governmental unit" -- typically, the local county --
to sell tax-delinquent property at auction and retain any surplus
proceeds.
In Plaintiff's case and many others, this practice resulted in a
windfall for the government. (claiming that Defendant Gratiot
County retained $21,908.77 in surplus proceeds from selling
Plaintiff's property). In June 2019, the Plaintiff brought this
action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 to declare the practice
unconstitutional and to recover surplus proceeds from 26 counties.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LeQQds at no extra charge.[CC]
SANITAS USA: Sechi-Capote Sues Over Discrimination & Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA SECHI-CAPOTE, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SANITAS USA, INC., a for profit
Florida corporation, and GUIDEWELL-SANITAS I, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-21479-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., May 12, 2022) brings this class action complaint
against the Defendants to recover unpaid wages and other statutory
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a Director of
Operations from approximately December 7, 2020 through October 18,
2021, and then as a Director of Business Development from
approximately October 18, 2021 through March 7, 2022.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have violated the Equal
Pay Act throughout his entire period of employment because the
Defendants paid him at a rate less than the rate it paid male
employees.
The Plaintiff seeks unpaid wages, all awardable wages, attorneys'
fees and costs of the action, and legal and equitable relief as the
Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
The Corporate Defendants provide healthcare services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
Miami, FL 33143
Tel: (305) 665-9211
E-mail: AFS@LABORLAWFLA.COM
SANTA CLARA, CA: Court Tosses Leon's Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH R. LEON, DUX708, v.
OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-06317-CRB (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Charles R. Breyer entered an order denying
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification because it is
well-established that pro se plaintiffs are not adequate class
representatives able to fairly represent and adequately protect the
interests of a class.
The Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is also denied
for lack of exceptional circumstances, says Judge Breyer.
The Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Santa Clara County Jail
(SCCJ), filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. section 1983
against three Santa Clara County Superior Court judges -- David A.
Cena, Eric S. Geffon and Cynthia Sevely -- challenging various
decisions the judges made in connection with plaintiff's ongoing
state criminal proceedings and pretrial detention. Among other
things, plaintiff challenged the judges' decisions on his
applications/motions for bail and to locate and interview witnesses
(plaintiff is representing himself) and on his request for medical
care outside SCCJ because medical care at SCCJ is inadequate. The
Plaintiff sought damages and injunctive relief.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N8FjxG at no extra charge.[CC]
SEMI-TROPIC COOP: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Terminated
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FABIAN CABALLERO MARTINEZ,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v.
SEMI-TROPIC COOPERATIVE GIN & ALMOND HULLER, INC. and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. 1:19-cv-01581-JLT-BAK (E.D. Cal.),
the Court entered an order that:
1. The pending motion for preliminary approval of class
settlement is terminated.
2. The prior schedule for supplemental briefing is vacated.
3. The parties shall file an amended settlement agreement and
renewed motion for preliminary approval of the agreement
no later than June 27, 2022.
4. Consistent with the Court's prior order dated April 5,
2022, the Plaintiff is reminded to 8 address the factors
identified in Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure in support of the motion for preliminary
approval.
Fabian Caballero Martinez asserts Semi-Tropic Cooperative Gin &
Almond Huller failed to comply with California's wage and hour
laws. Previously, the Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a class settlement reached in this action, including
conditional certification of a settlement class and preliminary
approval of the settlement terms.
The Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing
addressing errors in the proposed settlement agreement and pending
motion. On April 25, 2022, the parties filed a joint statement
concerning conditional certification of the settlement class,
indicating they "are willing to amend the settlement agreement to
conform with the applicable federal class certification
requirements laid out in Rule 23 and refile Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval."
Semi-Tropic is located in Wasco, California. This organization
primarily operates in the Cotton Ginning business.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PjdxAA at no extra charge.[CC]
SEQUOIA ONE: Scheduling Order Entered in Bendau Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY BENDAU v. SEQUOIA
ONE PEO, LLC; CEREBRAL MEDICAL GROUP, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION;
MEDICAL GROUP, PA fka SOUTH LEMON PROVIDER GROUP, PA; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-09580-VC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- Last Day to Amend Pleadings: June 13, 2022
-- The Plaintiff's Class Certification October 10, 2022
Motion:
-- The Defendant's Class Certification November 14, 2022
Opposition:
-- The Plaintiff's Class Certification December 19, 2022
Reply:
-- Completion of First ADR Session: January 19, 2023
-- Hearing on Class Certification January 19, 2023
Motion:
A copy of the Court's order dated April 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38pWHiU at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
Katherine Odenbreit, Esq.
Kate Nicole G. Blanco, Esq.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 590-5550
Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
E-mail: kmahoneygmahoney-law.net
kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net
kblanco@mahoney-law.net
- and -
Ira Spiro, Esq.
IRA SPIRO, ATTORNEY AT LAW
10573 W Pico Boulevard, No. 865
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310) 235-2350
E-mail: iragspirolawcorp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Marlene Muraco, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
50 West San Fernando Street
7th Floor San Jose, CA 95113
Telephone: (408) 795-3435
Facsimile: (408) 288-5686
E-mail: mmuraco@littler.com
STEWARD HEALTH: Ct. Amends Class Certification Schedule in Williams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEVERLY WILLIAMS AND AMY
JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. STEWARD HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, LLC; AND MEDICAL
REIMBURSEMENTS OF AMERICA, Case No. 5:20-cv-00123-RWS-CMC (E.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Caroline M. Craven entered an order granting
joint motion for entry of amended class certification docket
control order.
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file July 13, 2022
Motion for Class Certification
and designate expert witnesses
on which Plaintiffs rely in
support of class certification:
-- Deadline to complete depositions August 15, 2022
of Plaintiffs’ class
certification experts.
-- Deadline for Defendants to file September 14, 2022
their opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification
and designate expert witnesses
on which Defendants rely in
opposing class certification:
-- Deadline to complete depositions October 14, 2022
of the Defendants' class
certification experts:
-- Deadline for Plaintiff to file October 31, 2022
reply in support of
Motion for Class Certification:
-- Deadline for Defendants to file December 1, 2022
surreply in opposition to
the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification:
-- Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion December 8, 2022
for Class Certification:
A copy of the Court's order dated April 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wqX9Fr at no extra charge.[CC]
TAILORED BRANDS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barbieri Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN BARBIERI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TAILORED BRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00491-GLS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., May 11, 2022) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Barbieri was employed by the Defendant as tailor.
Tailored Brands, Inc. provides suits, suit separates, sport coats,
slacks, sportswear, outerwear, dress shirts, shoes, and accessories
for men, as well as offers tuxedo rentals. Tailored Brands serves
clients in North America. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: ykopel@bursor.com
pfraietta@bursor.com
TARGET CORPORATION: Medina Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GUSTAVO MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2204117, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May
11, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-00805 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and
permit rest periods, failure to timely pay wages owed upon
separation from employment, knowing and intentional failure to
comply with itemized wage statement provisions, and unfair
competition.
Target Corporation is an American big box department store chain
headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Julie A. Dunne, Esq.
Matthew Riley, Esq.
Alberto Corona, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
401 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 699-2700
Facsimile: (619) 699-2701
E-mail: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com
matthew.riley@us.dlapiper.com
UNIFUND CCR: Cobbins Consumer Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GILES COBBINS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, Case No.
22SL-CC01841, was removed from the 21st Judicial Circuit Court of
St. Louis County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri on May 11, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:22-cv-00515-RWS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, wrongful garnishment,
conversion, money had and received, and unjust enrichment.
Unifund CCR Partners is a general partnership of Credit Card
Receivables Fund Incorporated, with its principal place of business
in Ohio, and ZB Limited Partnership, with its principal place of
business in New York. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel E. Tranen, Esq.
John R. Suermann, Jr., Esq.
WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
7751 Carondelet Ave, Suite 203
Saint Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (618) 307-4895
Facsimile: (618) 307-0221
E-mail: daniel.tranen@wilsonelser.com
john.suermann@wilsonelser.com
WORLD AUTOMOTIVE: Unlawfully Denied Consumers' Credit Applications
------------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit claims a Kia dealership in the Chicago area has
unlawfully denied consumers' credit applications without providing
certain disclosures required by law.
DEFENDANT(S)
World Automotive Joliet LLC
LAW(S)
Fair Credit Reporting Act Equal Credit Opportunity Act Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
STATE(S)
Illinois
A proposed class action claims a Kia dealership in the Chicago area
has unlawfully denied consumers' credit applications without
providing notice of its privacy policy, the applicants' right to
opt out of the policy and an explanation for why their application
was denied.
Moreover, the 16-page suit out of Illinois alleges defendant World
Automotive Joliet LLC deceptively represents that consumers can get
pre-approved for a car loan without any negative effect on their
credit while failing to disclose that the application process will,
in fact, lower a consumer's credit score.
"Defendant's conduct conceals the negative effect that Defendant's
application process has on customer creditworthiness - including
lower credit scores and credit reporting that remains visible to
lenders, insurance brokers, and potential employers for years," the
complaint states.
The plaintiff in the case says he applied for a car loan through
World Kia Joliet's website on August 16, 2021 and was informed that
he was pre-qualified for a loan. Per the suit, the plaintiff's
credit application was evaluated by third party iPreCheck, whose
terms of use specify that the credit offer originates from the car
dealer and its affiliates.
According to the case, the defendant's finance application states
that applicants must only submit the last four digits of their
Social Security numbers and that the application process "Does NOT
Affect Your Credit." Moreover, iPreCheck's terms of use note that
the information provided to the company will only be shared with
the data provider, TransUnion, and the dealer, the suit says.
The plaintiff says he was attempting to avoid any hard credit
inquiries and thus relied on the representations that his personal
information would remain private and the application would not
affect his credit.
According to the suit, World Kia Joliet's website does not state
the dealer's privacy policy regarding the information it receives
from iPreCheck or notify consumers of their right to opt out of its
privacy practices.
Following the plaintiff's application for credit, he received a
call "within minutes" from one of the defendant's sales agents, who
then completed a credit application for the plaintiff and informed
him that his application was "good," the case relays.
When the plaintiff ultimately visited the World Kia Joliet
dealership, however, the defendant's agents shared his information
with lenders, who made hard inquiries into his credit report
without the man's consent, according to the case. The plaintiff
says a World Kia Joliet employee then informed him that no sales
agents were available and refused him service.
Per the case, the defendant's failure to provide the plaintiff
notice of the adverse action, i.e., its refusal to provide or
arrange financing for him, is a violation of state and federal
consumer credit laws. Moreover, the suit claims World Kia Joliet
unlawfully failed to inform the plaintiff of its privacy policy and
his right to opt out of having his private information shared with
third parties.
According to the suit, the plaintiff's experience at World Kia
Joliet is "not unique," as evidenced by complaints on social media,
in public records and with industry associations.
The plaintiff looks to represent anyone who, during the applicable
statute of limitations period, received pre-approval loan offers
from the defendant but whose credit applications were declined by
the dealer without notice of a privacy policy, their right to opt
out, and an adverse action.[GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Has $301MM Reserves at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. has reported total reserves for
asbestos claims of $301 million at March 31, 2022, compared to $320
million at September 30, 2021, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Ashland is subject to liabilities from claims
alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Such
claims result from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990
in connection with the sale of Riley Stoker Corporation (Riley) and
the acquisition of Hercules in November 2008. Although Riley, a
former subsidiary, was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of
asbestos, its industrial boilers contained some asbestos-containing
components provided by other companies. Hercules, an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland, has liabilities from claims
alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Such
claims typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers
from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products sold by one of
Hercules' former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market.
"To assist in developing and annually updating independent reserve
estimates for future asbestos claims and related costs given
various assumptions for Ashland and Hercules asbestos claims,
Ashland retained third party actuarial experts Gnarus. The
methodology used by Gnarus to project future asbestos costs is
based largely on recent experience, including claim-filing and
settlement rates, disease mix, enacted legislation, open claims and
litigation defense. The claim experience of Ashland and Hercules
are separately compared to the results of previously conducted
third party epidemiological studies estimating the number of people
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were
undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population
expected to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information,
Gnarus estimates a range of the number of future claims that may be
filed, as well as the related costs that may be incurred in
resolving those claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3wvV9f9
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrier Global Corporation has been named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos allegedly integrated into certain Carrier products or
business premises, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Carrier Global states, "While the Company has never manufactured
asbestos and no longer incorporates it into any
currently-manufactured products, certain products that the Company
no longer manufactures contained components incorporating asbestos.
A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been
dismissed without payment or have been covered in full or in part
by insurance or other forms of indemnity. Additional cases were
litigated and settled without any insurance reimbursement. The
amounts involved in asbestos-related claims were not material
individually or in the aggregate in any period.
"The amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities are based on
currently available information and assumptions that the Company
believes are reasonable and are made with input from outside
actuarial experts. These amounts are undiscounted and exclude the
Company’s legal fees to defend the asbestos claims, which are
expensed as incurred. In addition, the Company has recorded
insurance recovery receivables for probable asbestos-related
recoveries."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3PnHY8T
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Has 186 Cases Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company has been named as a defendant in civil
actions alleging that certain talcum powder products that were sold
prior to 1996 were contaminated with asbestos and/or caused
mesothelioma and other cancers, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of March 31, 2022, there were 186
individual cases pending against the Company in state and federal
courts throughout the United States, as compared to 171 cases as of
December 31, 2021. During the three months ended March 31, 2022, 17
new cases were filed and two cases were resolved by voluntary
dismissal. There were no settlements of pending cases in the three
months ended March 31, 2022. Many of these actions involve a number
of co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including
suppliers of asbestos and manufacturers of products that, unlike
the Company's products, were designed to contain asbestos.
"A significant portion of the Company's costs incurred in defending
and resolving these claims has been, and the Company believes that
a portion of such costs will continue to be, covered by insurance
policies issued by several primary, excess and umbrella insurance
carriers, subject to deductibles, exclusions, retentions, policy
limits and insurance carrier insolvencies.
"While the Company and its legal counsel believe that these cases
are without merit and intend to challenge them vigorously, there
can be no assurances regarding the ultimate resolution of these
matters."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/39r2x3F
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Defends Numerous Exposure Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc., formerly, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., is
one of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed
throughout the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury as a result
of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These claims arose from the insulation
operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown
Cork purchased in 1963. Approximately ninety days after the stock
purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was
later merged into Crown Cork.
"The outstanding claims in each period exclude approximately 19,000
inactive claims. Due to the passage of time, the Company considers
it unlikely that the plaintiffs in these cases will pursue further
action against the Company. The exclusion of these inactive claims
had no effect on the calculation of the Company's accrual as the
claims were filed in states, as described above, where the
Company's liability is limited by statute.
"Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with plaintiffs' counsel
in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims which are not yet
filed, or asserted, against it. However, Crown Cork expects claims
under these arrangements to be filed or asserted against Crown Cork
in the future. The projected value of these claims is included in
the Company's estimated liability as of March 31, 2022.
"As of March 31, 2022, the Company's accrual for pending and future
asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $234, including
$192 for unasserted claims. The Company determines its accrual
without limitation to a specific time period.
"It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess
of the Company's accrual. However, the Company is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due
to uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the
Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such
accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was
not specified for approximately 82% of the claims outstanding at
the end of 2021), the Company and claimant's willingness to
negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other
defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy
filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims
and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of
pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged
disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos before
or during 1964 and the claimant's ability to demonstrate the
alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation
environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the
level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the
jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state
asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of
the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions,
where the substantial majority of the Company's asbestos cases are
filed)."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3wAoB3E
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Still Faces A&E Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., continues to receive
A&E claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Asbestos claims relate primarily to bodily
injuries asserted by people who came in contact with asbestos or
products containing asbestos. Environmental claims relate primarily
to pollution and related clean-up costs.
"The vast majority of the Company's exposure to A&E relates to
Run-off A&E, reported within the P&C Other Operations segment. In
addition, since 1986, the Company has written asbestos and
environmental exposures under general liability policies and
pollution liability under homeowners policies, which are reported
in the Commercial Lines and Personal Lines segments.
"Prior to 1986, the Company wrote several different categories of
insurance contracts that may cover A&E claims. First, the Company
wrote primary policies providing the first layer of coverage in an
insured's liability program. Second, the Company wrote excess and
umbrella policies providing higher layers of coverage for losses
that exhaust the limits of underlying coverage. Third, the Company
acted as a reinsurer assuming a portion of those risks assumed by
other insurers writing primary, excess, umbrella and reinsurance
coverages.
"Significant uncertainty limits the ability of insurers and
reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid
gross losses and expenses related to environmental and asbestos
claims. The degree of variability of gross reserve estimates for
these exposures is significantly greater than for other more
traditional exposures.
"In the case of the reserves for asbestos exposures, factors
contributing to the high degree of uncertainty include inadequate
loss development patterns, plaintiffs' expanding theories of
liability, the risks inherent in major litigation, and inconsistent
and emerging legal doctrines with respect to the underlying claims
and with respect to the Company's coverage obligations.
Furthermore, over time, insurers, including the Company, have
experienced significant changes in the rate at which asbestos
claims are brought, the claims experience of particular insureds,
and the value of claims, making predictions of future exposure from
past experience uncertain. Plaintiffs and insureds also have sought
to use bankruptcy proceedings, including "pre-packaged"
bankruptcies, to accelerate and increase loss payments by insurers.
In addition, some policyholders have asserted new classes of claims
for coverages to which an aggregate limit of liability may not
apply. Further uncertainties include insolvencies of other
carriers, insolvencies of insureds and unanticipated developments
pertaining to the Company's ability to recover reinsurance for A&E
claims. Management believes these issues are not likely to be
resolved in the near future."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3FUnoIN
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l. Faces Personal Injury Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. is named in asbestos-related personal
injury claims related to North American Refractories Company
(NARCO), which was sold in 1986, and the Bendix Friction Materials
(Bendix) business, which was sold in 2014, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "NARCO manufactured high-grade, heat-resistant,
refractory products for various industries. Honeywell's
predecessor, Allied Corporation, owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986.
Allied Corporation sold the NARCO business in 1986 and entered into
a cross-indemnity agreement which included an obligation to
indemnify the purchaser for asbestos claims, arising primarily from
alleged occupational exposure to asbestos-containing refractory
brick and mortar for high-temperature applications. NARCO ceased
manufacturing these products in 1980 and filed for bankruptcy in
January 2002, at which point in time all then current and future
NARCO asbestos claims were stayed against both NARCO and Honeywell
pending the reorganization of NARCO. The Company established its
initial liability for NARCO asbestos claims in 2002.
"NARCO emerged from bankruptcy in April 2013, at which time a
federally authorized 524(g) trust was established to evaluate and
resolve all existing NARCO asbestos claims (the Trust). Both
Honeywell and NARCO are protected by a permanent channeling
injunction barring all present and future individual actions in
state or federal courts and requiring all asbestos-related claims
based on exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing products to be made
against the Trust. The NARCO Trust Agreement (TA) and the NARCO
Trust Distribution Procedures (TDP) set forth the structure and
operating rules of the Trust, and established Honeywell’s
evergreen funding obligations.
"The NARCO asbestos-related liability reflects an estimate for the
resolution of Annual Contribution Claims and Pre-Established
Unliquidated Claims filed with the Trust, as well as for unasserted
Annual Contribution Claims and Pre-Established Unliquidated Claims.
The NARCO asbestos-related liability excludes the annual operating
expenses of the Trust which are expensed as they are incurred.
"Bendix manufactured automotive brake linings that contained
chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist
largely of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes
from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who
performed brake replacements.
"It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for
Bendix-related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or stabilize
in the future.
"The Company reflects the inclusion of all years of epidemiological
disease projection through 2059 when estimating the liability for
unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims. Such liability for
unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic and
anticipated claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease
classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the
previous five years. The Company valued Bendix asserted and
unasserted claims using average resolution values for the previous
five years. The Company updates the resolution values used to
estimate the cost of Bendix asserted and unasserted claims during
the fourth quarter each year."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3wyjMrH
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l. Paper Has $101MM Liabilities at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company, as of March 31, 2022, has total
recorded liability with respect to pending and future
asbestos-related claims of $101 million, net of estimated insurance
recoveries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in various
asbestos-related personal injury litigation, in both state and
federal court, primarily in relation to the prior operations of
certain companies previously acquired by the Company.
"While it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur losses
in excess of its recorded liability with respect to
asbestos-related matters, we are unable to estimate any loss or
range in excess of such liability, and do not believe additional
material losses are probable."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3lgsCFg
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Defends 1,524 Claims at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., as of March 31, 2022, was a
co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by approximately 1,524 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease
of 1,185 claims from those previously reported, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "In each instance, the Company is one of a
large number of defendants. The asbestos claimants seek
compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified
sums. Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in
other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 56,817 of
those claims were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts, 7
were tried to plaintiff verdicts (which were reversed or resolved
after appeal), 1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount
and 1,010 were decided in favor of the Company following summary
judgment motions."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3wjoLgY
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Defends 342 Open Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc., as of April 3, 2022, has reported 342
open asbestos cases, which is an increase in volume from previous
years, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The Company is party to a number of lawsuits
arising in the normal course of our business. Certain of the
Company's subsidiaries are among numerous defendants in a number of
cases seeking damages for exposure to asbestos containing materials
related to our talc products and operations. These claims typically
allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages, but do not provide adequate information to
assess their merits, the likelihood that the Company will be found
liable, or the magnitude of such liability, if any. We are unable
to state an amount or range of amounts claimed in any of the
lawsuits because state court pleading practices do not require
identifying the amount of the claimed damage. While the cost to the
Company for the defense of these cases has increased concurrently
with the volume, the majority of these costs, excluding cases
against our subsidiaries AMCOL International Corporation or
American Colloid Company, which we acquired in 2014, are reimbursed
by Pfizer Inc. pursuant to the terms of certain agreements entered
into in connection with the Company's initial public offering in
1992. The Company is entitled to indemnification, pursuant to
agreement, for liabilities related to sales prior to the initial
public offering. At this time, management anticipates that the
amount of the Company’s liability, if any, and the cost of
defending such claims, will not have a material effect on its
financial position or results of operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3MsDUlO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Safety Faces 1,691 Lawsuits at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
MSA Safety Incorporated was named as a defendant in 1,691 lawsuits
comprised of 4,595 claims as of March 31, 2022, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "These lawsuits mainly involve respiratory
protection products allegedly manufactured and sold by MSA LLC or
its predecessors. The product models alleged were manufactured many
years ago by MSA LLC and are no longer sold.
"The increases in the number of claims in 2021 were largely driven
by an increase in claims alleging injuries from exposure to coal
dust, including claims brought by plaintiffs' counsel with which
MSA LLC does not have substantial prior experience.
Subsequent to March 31, 2022, MSA LLC agreed to enter into a
process to negotiate, resolve, and dismiss several hundreds of
claims over the next several months. Amounts to resolve these
claims have already been accrued as par of the product liability
reserve. If resolutions are reached, expected cash outlays of up to
$26.3 million associated with these claims are expected to be paid
over the next four quarters.
"Management has established a reserve for MSA LLC's potential
exposure to cumulative trauma product liability claims. MSA LLC's
total cumulative trauma product liability reserve was $410.8
million, including $3.5 million for claims settled but not yet paid
and related defense costs, as of March 31, 2022 and $409.8 million,
including $2.5 million for claims settled but not yet paid and
related defense costs, December 31, 2021. The reserve includes
estimated amounts related to asserted and IBNR asbestos, silica,
and coal dust claims expected to be resolved through the year 2074.
The reserve has not been discounted to present value and does not
include future amounts which will be spent to defend the claims.
Defense costs are recognized in the unaudited Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Income as incurred.
"At March 31, 2022, $47.9 million of the total reserve for
cumulative trauma product liability claims is recorded in the
Insurance and product liability line within other current
liabilities in the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
and the remainder, $362.9 million, is recorded in the Product
liability and other noncurrent liabilities line. At December 31,
2021, $46.7 million of the total reserve for cumulative trauma
product liability claims is recorded in the Insurance and product
liability line within other current liabilities in the unaudited
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and the remainder, $363.1
million, is recorded in the Product liability and other noncurrent
liabilities line.
"Total cumulative trauma liability losses were $2.8 million and
$3.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2022 and 2021,
respectively, primarily related to the defense of cumulative trauma
product liability claims. Uninsured cumulative trauma product
liability losses, which were included in Product liability expense
on the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income, were
$2.8 million and $2.8 million for the three months ended March 31,
2022 and 2021, respectively, and represent the total cumulative
trauma liability losses net of any estimated insurance
receivables.
"MSA LLC's cumulative trauma product liability reserve is based
upon a reasonable estimate of MSA LLC's current and potential
future liability for cumulative trauma product liability claims, in
accordance with applicable accounting principles. To develop a
reasonable estimate of MSA LLC's potential exposure to cumulative
trauma product liability claims, management performs an annual
comprehensive review of MSA LLC's cumulative trauma product
liability claims in consultation with an outside valuation
consultant and outside legal counsel. The review process takes into
account MSA LLC's historical claims experience, developments in MSA
LLC's claims experience over the past year, developments in the
tort system generally, and any other relevant information.
Quarterly, management and outside legal counsel review whether
significant new developments have occurred which could materially
impact recorded amounts, and if warranted, management reviews
changes with an outside valuation consultant. These adjustments
were largely a result of newly filed claims experienced during the
year and in particular, the number of newly filed coal claims,
which were well in excess of historical experience. Numerous
additional factors, data points, and developments were analyzed
during the annual review process."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3sDlTJO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Still Defends Exposure Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Otis Worldwide Corp has been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "While we have never manufactured any
asbestos-containing component parts, and no longer incorporate
asbestos in any current products, certain of our historical
products have contained components manufactured by third parties
incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these
asbestos-related claims have been dismissed without payment or were
covered in full or in part by insurance or other forms of
indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and settled without any
insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved in asbestos related
claims were not material individually or in the aggregate as of and
for the periods ended March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021.
"The estimated range of total liabilities to resolve all pending
and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is
approximately $22 million to $45 million as of March 31, 2022 and
December 31, 2021. Because no amount within the range of estimates
is more likely to occur than any other, we have recorded the
minimum amount of $22 million, which is principally recorded in
Other long-term liabilities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets as of March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021. Amounts are on a
pre-tax basis, not discounted, and exclude the Company's legal fees
to defend the asbestos claims (which will continue to be expensed
as they are incurred). In addition, the Company has an insurance
recovery receivable for probable asbestos-related recoveries of
approximately $5 million, which is principally included in Other
assets on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31,
2022 and December 31, 2021."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/39uOaLy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Faces Product Liability Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation, like many other industrial companies, have been
named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in courts across
the country by persons alleging personal injury from exposure to
products containing asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We have never mined, milled, manufactured or
marketed asbestos; rather, we made and provided to industrial users
a limited number of products that contained encapsulated asbestos,
but we stopped manufacturing these products in the late 1980s. Most
of the claims filed against us involve numerous defendants,
sometimes as many as several hundred.
"To date, the indemnity and defense costs of our asbestos-related
product liability litigation have been substantially covered by
insurance. Although we have exhausted coverage under some of our
insurance policies, we believe that we have applicable primary,
excess and/or umbrella coverage for claims arising with respect to
most of the years during which we manufactured and marketed
asbestos-containing products. In addition, we have entered into a
cost sharing agreement with most of our primary, excess and
umbrella insurance carriers to facilitate the ongoing
administration and payment of claims covered by the carriers. The
cost sharing agreement may be terminated by any party, but will
continue until a party elects to terminate it. As of the filing
date for this report, the agreement has not been terminated, and no
carrier had informed us it intended to terminate the agreement. We
expect to continue to exhaust individual primary, excess and
umbrella coverages over time, and there is no assurance that such
exhaustion will not accelerate due to additional claims, damages
and settlements or that coverage will be available as expected. We
are responsible for uninsured indemnity and defense costs, and we
incurred an immaterial amount of expenses for each of the
three-month periods ended March 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively,
related to such costs.
"The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related liability and the
related insurance receivables are based on facts known at the time
and a number of assumptions. However, projecting future events,
such as the number of new claims to be filed each year, the average
cost of disposing of such claims, the length of time it takes to
dispose of such claims, coverage issues among insurers and the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as well as the
numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the
United States, could cause the actual liability and insurance
recoveries for us to be higher or lower than those projected or
recorded."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3MsixkK
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 407 Pending Cases at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation, as of March 31, 2022, was a party to 407
pending cases involving an aggregate of 4,782 claimants primarily
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing
materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and
otherwise) manufactured or distributed by its former Lamons
division and certain other related subsidiaries for use primarily
in the petrochemical, refining and exploration industries,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
TriMas Corp. states, "The Company acquired various companies to
distribute its products that had distributed gaskets of other
manufacturers prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many
of its pending cases relate to locations at which none of its
gaskets were distributed or used.
"The Company may be subjected to significant additional
asbestos-related claims in the future, and will aggressively defend
or reasonably resolve, as appropriate. The cost of settling cases
in which product identification can be made may increase, and the
Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The cost of claims
varies as claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions
without specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the
requisite or maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be
amended to alter the amount sought. The large majority of claims do
not specify the amount sought. Of the 4,782 claims pending at March
31, 2022, 35 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than
those stating the statutory minimum or maximum). At March 31, 2022,
of the 35 claims that set forth specific amounts, there were zero
claims seeking more than $5 million for punitive damages.
"Relatively few claims have reached the discovery stage and even
fewer claims have gone past the discovery stage. Total settlement
costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such cases, some of
which were filed over 30 years ago, have been approximately $10.6
million. All relief sought in the asbestos cases is monetary in
nature. Based on the settlements made to date and the number of
claims dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification,
the Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does
not bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability.
"The Company records a liability for asbestos-related claims, which
includes both known and unknown claims, based on a study from the
Company's third-party actuary, the Company's review of the study,
as well as the Company's own review of asbestos claims and claim
resolution activity.
"In the fourth quarter of 2021, the Company commissioned its
actuary to update the study, based on data as of September 30,
2021, which yielded a range of possible future liability of $28.2
million to $38.6 million. The Company did not believe any amount
within the range of potential outcomes represented a better
estimate than another given the many factors and assumptions
inherent in the projections, and therefore recorded a non-cash,
pre-tax charge of $1.5 million to increase the liability estimate
to $28.2 million, at the low-end of the range. As of March 31,
2022, the Company's total asbestos-related liability is $27.2
million, and is included in accrued liabilities and other long-term
liabilities, respectively, in the accompanying consolidated balance
sheet.
"The Company's primary insurance, which covered approximately 40%
of historical costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos
litigation, expired in November 2018, upon which the Company became
solely responsible for defense costs and indemnity payments. The
Company is party to a coverage-in-place agreement (entered into in
2006) with its first level excess carriers regarding the coverage
to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related claims. The
coverage-in-place agreement makes asbestos defense costs and
indemnity insurance coverage available to the Company that might
otherwise be disputed by the carriers and provides a methodology
for the administration of such expenses. The Company will continue
to be solely responsible for defense costs and indemnity payments
prior to the commencement of coverage under this agreement, the
duration of which would be subject to the scope of damage awards
and settlements paid. Based upon the Company's review of the
actuarial study, the Company does not believe it is probable that
it will reach the threshold of qualified future settlements
required to commence excess carrier insurance coverage under the
coverage-in-place agreement."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3NlzFIY
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 919 Cases at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation, as of March 31, 2022, was a
defendant in approximately 919 active asbestos cases involving
approximately 2,509 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The vast majority of these cases involve
multiple defendants. About 1,545, or approximately 61 percent, of
these plaintiff claims are currently pending in a jurisdiction
which permits filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. At
December 31, 2021, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 915
active asbestos cases involving approximately 2,505 plaintiffs.
Based upon U. S. Steel's experience in such cases, it believes that
the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims
against U. S. Steel will likely be a small fraction of the total
number of plaintiffs.
"The amount U. S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not
material to U. S. Steel’s financial condition. However, U. S.
Steel is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related claims due to a number of uncertainties,
including: (1) the rates at which new claims are filed, (2) the
number of and effect of bankruptcies of other companies
traditionally defending asbestos claims, (3) uncertainties
associated with the variations in the litigation process from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4) uncertainties regarding the
facts, circumstances and disease process with each claim and (5)
any new legislation enacted to address asbestos-related claims.
"Further, U. S. Steel does not believe that an accrual for
unasserted claims is required. At any given reporting date, it is
probable that there are unasserted claims that will be filed
against the Company in the future. The Company engages an outside
valuation consultant to assist in assessing its ability to estimate
an accrual for unasserted claims. This assessment is based on the
Company's settlement experience, including recent claims trends.
The analysis focuses on settlements made over the last several
years as these claims are likely to best represent future claim
characteristics. After review by the valuation consultant and U. S.
Steel management, it was determined that the Company could not
estimate an accrual for unasserted claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Lks2Rl
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Still Faces Personal Injury Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
W.W. Grainger, Inc., from time to time, has also been named, along
with numerous other non-affiliated companies, as defendant in
litigation in various states involving asbestos and/or silica,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These lawsuits typically assert claims of
personal injury arising from alleged exposure to asbestos and/or
silica as a consequence of products manufactured by third parties
purportedly distributed by the Company. While several lawsuits have
been dismissed in the past based on the lack of product
identification, if a specific product distributed by the Company is
identified in any pending or future lawsuits, the Company will seek
to exercise indemnification remedies against the product
manufacturer to the extent available. In addition, the Company
believes that a substantial number of these claims are covered by
insurance. The Company has entered into agreements with its major
insurance carriers relating to the scope, coverage and the costs of
defense, of lawsuits involving claims of exposure to asbestos. The
Company believes it has strong legal and factual defenses and
intends to continue defending itself vigorously in these
lawsuits."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3NmwKiT
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurn Water Faces 6,000 PI Lawsuits at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zurn Water Solutions Corporation and numerous other unrelated
companies, as of March 31, 2022, were defendants in approximately
6,000 asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 7,000
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries
caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers
formerly manufactured by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not
manufacture asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn
purchased them from suppliers. These claims are being handled
pursuant to a defense strategy funded by insurers.
"As of March 31, 2022, the Company estimates the potential
liability for the asbestos-related claims described above, as well
as the claims expected to be filed in the next ten years, to be
approximately $66.0 million, of which Zurn expects its insurance
carriers to pay approximately $49.0 million in the next ten years
on such claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being
paid in subsequent years. The $66.0 million was developed based on
actuarial studies and represents the projected indemnity payout for
current and future claims. There are inherent uncertainties
involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future
settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and
settlement initiatives. As a result, actual liability could differ
from the estimate described herein and could be substantial. The
liability for the asbestos-related claims is recorded in reserve
for asbestos claims within the condensed consolidated balance
sheets.
"Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of March 31, 2022 is in excess of
the ten year estimated exposure, and accordingly, believes that all
current claims are covered by insurance.
"As of March 31, 2022, the Company had a recorded receivable from
its insurance carriers of $66.0 million, which corresponds to the
amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery. However, there is no assurance the Company's current
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed the Company's
coverage limits. Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount
of available coverage or create gaps in coverage include: changes
in law governing the policies, potential disputes and settlements
with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies
of one or more of the Company's carriers. The receivable for
probable asbestos-related recoveries is recorded in insurance for
asbestos claims within the condensed consolidated balance sheets."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Ppq8Cp
*********
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 ***