/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220531.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, May 31, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 102
Headlines
17TH AVE FOODS: Underpays Supermarket Employees, Britton Suit Says
34 DEGREES LLC: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Cole Suit Alleges
ABBVIE INC: August 10 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
ADA DIAMONDS: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ADAM CRUM: Jeremiah M. Files Suit in D. Alaska
AIRHAWK INTERNATIONAL: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AK SECURITY: Santiago Seek Overtime Wages for Security Guards
ALDI INC: Illinois Court Narrows Claims in Rawson Class Suit
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Seeks to Stay Briefing on Class Cert. Bid
ANNAPOLIS, MD: Faces Suit Over Health Problems in Public Housing
APHRIA INC: Bid to Certify Class Vacated w/o Prejudice
ARCARE INC: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Gilmore Suit Says
ARGENT TRUST: Lloyd Sues Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plan
ARROJO STUDIO: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
AUGUSTINE INC: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BACK MARKET: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BAKOTIC PATHOLOGY: Tamraz Suit Removed to S.D. California
BALAJI INVESTMENTS: Faces Black Suit Over Unpaid OT, Termination
BALBOA MANUFACTURING: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BARLEAN'S ORGANIC: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BAY CAFE: Suarez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
BCSS LTD: Knight Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
BERGER STEEL: Schwartzenberger Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BEST BUY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BIORAY INC: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BIOSKIN LASER: Polanco Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Rapisura's Bid to Remand Class Suit Denied
BONCHON USA: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BREWER YACHT: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRINKS INCORPORATED: Miller Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Sheriff Can Earn From Inmate Calling Services
CDR MAGUIRE: Reichman Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Safety Workers
CELGENE CORP: July 11 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
CHARISMA BRANDS: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHICAGO, IL: Denial of Miller's Bid to Intervene in Ali Suit Upheld
CIRCLE GRAPHICS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COMMUNITY MOBILE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morales Suit Alleges
CORPORATE SHIRTS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COUNTER FACTORY: Havey Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
CREATIVE NATURAL: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CYCRA INC: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DCOMM INC: Underpays Field Technicians, Mendez Suit Alleges
DULCE DE LECHE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Linares Alleges
ENTERTAINMENT 2851: Fails to Properly Pay Dancers, Burgos Claims
ESTEE LAUDER: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Biometric Collection
ESTEE LAUDER: Illegally Collects Facial Geometry, Castelaz Says
ETSY INC: Brown Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
FIAT CHRYSLER: Olsen Files Bid for Transfer Actions
FIRSTENERGY CORP: $180MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 4
FORREST C. FREEMAN: Dalton Sues Over ERISA Violation
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Prevents Entry of Generic Inhalers, Dale Says
GOLDEN STATE FC: Class Certification Briefing Entered in Trevino
GOLDWATER BANK: Aussieker Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
GOODYEAR TIRE: Legg Sues Over Non-Exempt Workers' Unpaid Overtime
GREAT AUSTRALIAN WINE: Dotson Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
GREENSKY INC: Ferguson Appeals Arbitration Ruling in Belyea Suit
HARVEST HOSPITALITIES: Royal Suit Moved From D.N.J. to W.D. Pa.
HARVEST HOSPITALITIES: Wilson Suit Moved From E.D. to W.D. Pa.
HEALTH CARE: Insurance Policy Discriminates LGBTQ, Murphy Claims
HFS OF LAUREL: Bennett Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Mississippi
HH INTERMODAL: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Spotters
HUMBL LLC: Pasquinelli Sues Over Decline of Common Stock Price
INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL: Pena Sues Over Penuma's FDA-Cleared Ads
INTERVET INC: Goodman Files Suit in D. New Jersey
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Monroe Central Claims
JUUL LABS: Faces Florence One Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Upshur County Says
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Dix Suit Moved From D. Kan. to W.D. Pa.
KYMA HUDSON: Mera Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Discrimination
LADY GREEN: Underpays Recycling Employees, Infante Suit Claims
LAFONCE LATHAM: Ballard Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Villanueva Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to S.D. Fla.
LEIDOS INC: Waters Labor Suit Moved From N.D. Ill. to E.D. Va.
LYFT INC: Haider Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial to 2nd Cir.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: $65.75MM Settlement to be Heard on July 28
MAVERICK TUBE: Whitfield Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, AMWA
MCD PIZZA: Fails to Reimburse Automobile Expenses, Harper Claims
MERCADITO LA: Fails to Pay Wages Owed, Garza FLSA Suit Claims
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Cars Have Defective Braking System, Suit Says
MILLER ENERGY: $35MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 30
MLAND MAINTENANCE: Lechuga Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Illinois
MOUNTAIN HARDWEAR: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MRS. FIELDS FAMOUS: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MVP EVENT: Ambrose Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MVP EVENT: Johnson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NAVY FEDERAL: Wilkins Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
NEWLINE W P SERVICES: Ciapara Sues Over Unpaid OT, Retaliation
NEXTGEN LABORATORIES: Khan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NEXTGEN LEADS: Ploeger Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: $73MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 20
NORTHCENTRAL PIZZA: Flygare Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NORTHWEST MICHIGAN: Challender Sues Over Discrimination, Unpaid OT
NULIFE MED: Pires Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Customers' Info
OKTA INC: City of Miami Sues Over 10.74% Drop of Stock Price
ORACLE CORP: Appeals Class Cert Ruling in Sunrise Firefighters Suit
OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in Gardner
OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in King
OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in Le
OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in Menefee
OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in Parkerson
OVASCIENCE INC: $15MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 26
PACIFIC NW: Daniel Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
PALMCO ENERGY: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
PARKER HANNIFIN: Faces Migliaccio Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
PEPSICO INC: Drobsch PMWA Suit Moved From W.D. Pa. to S.D.N.Y.
PEPSICO INC: Smith VOWA Suit Moved From E.D. Va. to S.D.N.Y.
PEPSICO INC: Tschudy Labor Suit Moved From W.D. Wis. to S.D.N.Y.
PF-AURORA LLC: Rios Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometric Data
PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRICT: Sargent SeekS to Certify Class
R.T.R. FINANCIAL: Okten FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
RALPH LAUREN: Faces Miramontes Suit Over Mislabeled Sweaters
RAPID FINANCIAL: Watkins Seeks to Certify Nevada Card Class
RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Grady PAGA Suit Removed to C.D. California
REALREAL INC: $11MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 28
RELIANT PRO: Anderson Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Therapists
RENOVACARE INC: Faces Solakian Shareholder Suit in NJ Court
RESONANT INC: Misleads Investors to Accept Offer Price, Boudre Says
RETAIL ECOMMERCE: Hernandez Files Suit in C.D. California
RETAIL ECOMMERCE: Panaligan Files Suit in C.D. California
RIC-DEBRIG INC: Perez-Mosos Sues Over Telephonic Sales Calls
RISE SERVICES: Anthony Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
RIVIERA MAYA: Cruz Seeks to Conditionally Certify Collective Action
RPM INT'L: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled for July 21
RUBY CORP: Crouch Files Suit in S.D. California
S & C PIZZA: Faces Lobos Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. New York
SACRAMENTO, CA: Garza, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Extension to File Opposition Brief Sought
SEAGLE PIZZA: Delivery Drivers Get Class Status in Thompson
SEATTLE, WA: Hunters Capital Loses Class Certification Bid
SERVICE KING: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert Briefing OK'd
SIMMONS BANK: Initial Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
SONESTA INTERNATIONAL: Dominguez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
SRG OPERATING: Faces Belonio Suit Over Illegal Background Check
STATESIDE TAX: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Costa Class Suit
STERLING BANCORP: Class Settlement Hearing Scheduled for Sept. 29
STEWARD HEALTH: Court Amends Class Certification Order
STRYKER CORPORATION: Underpays CSRs, Floyd Suit Claims
TEAM INDUSTRIAL: Settlement Reached in California Class Action
TESORO REFINING: McGhee Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
TRUE OFFER: Beal Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
TTX COMPANY: Leon Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
TUNNEL BARREL: Licona Seeks FLSA Class Certification
TWITTER INC: Morgan Consumer Suit Removed to E.D. Washington
UNION PACIFIC: Smithson Class Suit Junked
UNION SECURITY: Second Amended Scheduling Order Entered
UNITED COLLECTION: Fedida Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Debts
UNITED EQUITABLE: Ill. App. Affirms Dismissal of Bond Class Suit
UNITED SERVICES: Partly Wins Dismissal of MSP's 2nd Amended Suit
UNITED STATES: Bid for Class Cert. Must be Filed by Oct. 30
UNITED STATES: Court of Federal Claims Dismisses Sofman Suit
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Underwrites Less Creditworthy Loans, Suit Alleges
WEST BEND MUTUAL: No Joke Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
YEEHAWCOWBOY.COM LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
YUMMYEARTH INC: Marino Files Suit in N.D. California
ZAMORA COMPANY: Brown Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
*********
17TH AVE FOODS: Underpays Supermarket Employees, Britton Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS J. BRITTON and ARLYN E. LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 17TH AVE FOODS &
GROCERY LLC, d/b/a FRIENDS MEAT MARKET, JOSHUA AKREAM, and MOHAMED
WASHAM, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-21579 (S.D.
Fla., May 22, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, and retaliatory
discharge.
Plaintiff Britton was employed by the Defendants as a supermarket
attendant, kitchen helper, and maintenance employee from
approximately February 12, 2022, to April 28, 2022.
Plaintiff Lopez was employed by the Defendants as a cook,
supermarket attendant, and cleaning employee from approximately
January 24, 2022 until April 28, 2022.
17th Ave Foods & Grocery LLC, doing business as Friends Meat
Market, is a supermarket and cafeteria located at 6101 NW 17th
Avenue, Miami, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
34 DEGREES LLC: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 34 Degrees, LLC. The
case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 34 Degrees, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04172 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
34 Degrees -- https://34-degrees.com/ -- is the maker of
deliciously thin, light and crunchy crisps for all occasions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Cole Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
RONNIE COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01605-RMG
(D.S.C., May 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his alleged exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care
in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction,
training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their
PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public
entities and civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a
danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff
was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with colon and
liver cancer, the suit asserts.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
ABBVIE INC: August 10 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MAYUKO HOLWILL, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
ABBVIE INC., et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 1:18-cv-06790
Honorable Charles R. Norgle, Sr.
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF
PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
TO:
All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares
of the publicly- traded common stock of AbbVie Inc. ("AbbVie" or
the "Company") during the period from October 25, 2013 through
September 18, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").
You could be affected by a class action lawsuit against AbbVie Inc.
("AbbVie") and Individual Defendants Richard A. Gonzalez and
William J. Chase (collectively, "Defendants"). The Court, which
authorized this notice, is allowing the case to proceed as a class
action on behalf of a "Class" and has appointed attorneys as "Class
Counsel." The Court has not decided that Defendants did anything
wrong. Defendants have not been ordered to pay any money. No
settlement has been reached. There is no money available now and no
guarantee that there will be any recovery in the future.
What is this case about?
The lawsuit alleges that Defendants knowingly made false and
misleading statements about AbbVie's compliance with applicable
laws, regulations, and its own code of business conduct in the
marketing and sale of its flagship drug, Humira, in violation of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendants deny any wrongdoing
in this lawsuit and believe that the claims are without merit.
Are you included?
You are a potential "Class Member" only if you purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of the publicly-traded common stock of
AbbVie during the period of October 25, 2013 through September 18,
2018, inclusive. Excluded from the Class are AbbVie and the
Individual Defendants; members of the immediate families of the
Individual Defendants; AbbVie's subsidiaries and affiliates; any
person who is or was an officer or director of AbbVie or any of its
subsidiaries during the Class Period; any entity in which any
Defendant has a controlling interest; and the legal
representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of any such
excluded person or entity. Also excluded from the Class is any
person or entity that timely and validly requests exclusion from
the Class in response to this notice. In addition, Defendants have
the right to move to decertify the Class, in whole or in part, or
to seek the exclusion of certain entities or individuals from the
Class at a later date.
What are your options?
If you want to stay in the Class you do not have to do anything
now. If you do nothing, you will stay in the Class, be bound by the
Court's orders, and will lose any right to sue Defendants
separately regarding the factual circumstances and claims in this
case. If you do not want to be a Class Member and be bound by what
the Court does in this matter, and if you want to keep your rights
to sue Defendants, you need to ask to be excluded from the Class.
To be excluded, you must send a letter to AbbVie Inc. Securities
Litigation, ATTN: EXCLUSIONS, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173001,
Milwaukee, WI 53217 and you must include certain information as set
forth in the long form notice available at the website listed
below. If you choose to exclude yourself you cannot receive any
money or benefits recovered in this case if any are awarded at a
later date. The deadline to exclude yourself is August 10, 2022.
Where to get more information?
This notice is only a summary. For more information visit
www.abbviesecuritieslitigation.com or call 877-316-0169.
ADA DIAMONDS: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ada Diamonds, Inc.
The case is styled as Yelitza Picon, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Ada Diamonds, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04188 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ada Diamonds -- https://www.adadiamonds.com/ -- is a bespoke fine
jeweler, using exclusively socially and environmentally superior,
lab-grown diamonds in all of our fine jewelry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
ADAM CRUM: Jeremiah M. Files Suit in D. Alaska
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adam Crum, et al. The
case is styled as Jeremiah M., Hannah M., Hunter M., by their next
friend Lisa Nicolai; Mary B., Connor B., by their next friend
Charles Ketcham; David V., George V., Karen V., Damien V., Lawrence
V., by their next friend Michelle Caldwell; Rachel T., Eleanor T.,
Gayle T., by their next friend Rebecca Fahnestock; individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated v. Adam Crum, Director, Alaska
Department of Health and Social Services, in his official capacity;
Kim Guay, Director, Office of Children's Services, in her official
capacity; Alaska Deparment of Health and Social Services, Alaska
Office of Childrens Services Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00129-JWS (D.
Alaska, May 19, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.
Adam Crum -- https://dhss.alaska.gov/commissioner/ -- serves as
commissioner for the Alaska Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Danielle M. Ryman, Esq.
Elena Marie Romerdahl, Esq.
Michael Edward O'Brien, Esq.
PERKINS COIE, LLP
1029 W. 3rd Avenue, Suite 300
Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone: (907) 263-6927
Fax: (907) 276-3108
Email: dryman@perkinscoie.com
eromerdahl@perkinscoie.com
MOBrien@perkinscoie.com
- and -
James J. Davis, Jr., Esq.
NORTHERN JUSTICE PROJECT
310 K Street, Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone: (907) 264-6634
Fax: (866) 813-8645
Email: jdavis@njp-law.com
- and -
Mark W. Regan, Esq.
DISABILITY LAW CENTER OF ALASKA
3330 Arctic Blvd., Suite 103
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone: (907) 565-1002
Fax: (907) 565-1000
Email: mregan@dlcak.org
- and -
Nicholas Feronti, Esq.
NORTHERN JUSTICE PROJECT, LLC
406 G Street, Suite 207
Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone: (907) 308-3395
Email: nferonti@njp-law.com
AIRHAWK INTERNATIONAL: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Airhawk
International, LLC. The case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Airhawk
International, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04195 (S.D.N.Y., May 22,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Airhawk International -- https://airhawk.net/ -- offers handcrafted
high-performance leather motorcycle seats.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
AK SECURITY: Santiago Seek Overtime Wages for Security Guards
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN SANTIAGO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. AK SECURITY SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01986-AT
(N.D. Ga., May 18, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime
wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
This lawsuit arises from the failure of Defendant to properly
calculate and pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
overtime wages during the period three years prior to the filing of
this complaint, May 18, 2019 through May 18, 2022.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a security guard.
The Defendant allegedly paid Plaintiff and other Security Guards a
flat hourly rate regardless of the amount of hours worked. The
Defendant denied the Plaintiff and other Security Guards payment of
overtime wage compensation required by the FLSA for any hours
working in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the suit.
AK Security Services provides professional security guard
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon Van Remmen, Esq.
Christopher B. Hall, Esq.
HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
400 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1150
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (404) 876-8100
Facsimile: (404) 876-3477
E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com
gordon@hallandlampros.com
ALDI INC: Illinois Court Narrows Claims in Rawson Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSICA RAWSON, on behalf of herself and all others
similar situated, Plaintiff v. ALDI, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-2811 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.
I. Background
The proposed class action centers around Plaintiff Rawson's
allegations that Defendant ALDI falsely and deceptively markets its
Atlantic Salmon products as sustainably sourced. The Defendants
have filed a motion to dismiss.
ALDI is a national food retailer in the United States with over
2,000 stores across the country. Rawson, a citizen of New York,
alleges that at least once a month for the last four years, she
bought Atlantic Salmon products from ALDI with the label: "Simple.
Sustainable. Seafood."
Ms. Rawson alleges that, despite this label, ALDI does not
sustainably source its Atlantic Salmon products. Rather, ALDI
sources its salmon from large industrial fish farms that use
environmentally destructive and unsustainable practices. For
instance, Rawson alleges that ALDI gets its salmon, at least in
part, from fish farms in Chile that use net pen aquaculture that
crowds thousands of fish into cages or "pens" in natural waterways.
Rawson contends that this method is a "high risk" form of fish
farming because, among other things, it "allows free exchange of
waste, chemicals, parasites and disease" between the pens and the
surrounding environment.
Ms. Rawson also asserts that, along with net pens, ALDI's Atlantic
Salmon products use ethoxyquin, a preservative in fish feed, which
also poses a risk for aquatic life. Rawson further alleges that
ALDI's suppliers use of wild-caught salmon in salmon feed adds to
the collapse of wild fish stock and the aquatic ecosystem. In sum,
Rawson claims that these practices make ALDI's Atlantic Salmon
products unsustainable.
Ms. Rawson alleges that she bought ALDI's Atlantic Salmon products
based on the sustainable label and agreed to pay a premium to
purchase sustainable salmon products. She brings claims under New
York General Business Law Section 349 (deceptive acts), Section 350
(false advertising), violation of 33 other state consumer
protection statutes, breach of express warranty, and unjust
enrichment. Her complaint also requests injunctive relief enjoining
ALDI from unlawful and deceptive practices. She seeks to bring
these claims individually and on behalf of a proposed class under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
ALDI has filed a motion to dismiss Rawson's complaint. Global
Seafood Alliance has filed a motion for leave to file an amicus
brief in support of ALDI's motion to dismiss.
II. Discussion
A. New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350
ALDI first seeks dismissal of Rawson's New York General Business
Law claims (counts I and II). Rawson, a New York resident who
purchased ALDI salmon in New York, asserts claims under the New
York General Business Law. The parties do not dispute that New York
law applies.
ALDI argues that Rawson's claims fail because (1) its label is not
misleading when read in context with the product's "Best
Aquaculture Practices" ("BAP") certification label, (2) the
consumer perception publications Rawson cites say nothing about
ALDI's label, (3) its label constitutes non-actionable puffery, and
(4) Rawson fails to allege a cognizable injury.
Judge Alonso holds that although Rawson does not allege any
comparative products that establish a numerical premium, he does
not find this fatal to her claim. Rawson alleges that consumers
seek out and will pay more for "ecologically sustainable" products.
She also cites consumer research to support this allegation. Judge
Alonso finds that this is a reasonable inference and sufficient to
survive the motion to dismiss stage. Accordingly, the motion is
denied as to counts I and II.
B. Breach of Express Warranty
Next, Judge Alonso turns to ALDI's express warranty argument. "To
state a claim for breach of express warranty under New York law, a
plaintiff must allege (1) the existence of a material statement
amounting to a warranty, (2) the buyer's reliance on this warranty
as a basis for the contract with the immediate seller, (3) breach
of the warranty, and (4) injury to the buyer caused by the breach."
"An express warranty may be formed by advertisements and privity is
not required to sustain a cause of action seeking to recover
damages for breach of an express warranty."
Judge Alonso finds that Rawson adequately alleges a claim for
breach of express warranty. ALDI advances the same positions as
those in support of its New York General Business Law argument:
that the representation is not material to a reasonable consumer
when read in context, and that Rawson suffered no damage. But for
the same reasons he discussed, Judge Alonso disagrees. The motion
to dismiss is denied as to count IV.
C. State Consumer Protection Statutes
Next, Judge Alonso addresses ALDI's argument that it should dismiss
Rawson's other state consumer protection statute claims. In her
complaint, Rawson includes a count for violation of 33 other state
consumer protection statutes. ALDI argues that this count should be
dismissed because Rawson fails to allege a material
misrepresentation and because this laundry list pleading approach
is insufficient to state a claim for relief. It further argues that
Rawson cannot maintain a claim under these statutes because she
does not allege that she bought products in any state but New York.
Rawson responds that she intends to represent a multi-state
subclass harmed by ALDI's false and deceptive labeling and that
these consumer statutes are largely similar, which is why she
grouped them together.
Judge Alonso has already addressed the material misrepresentation
argument above when discussing the sustainable and BAP labels. That
leaves ALDI's remaining argument -- i.e., that Rawson cannot
maintain her other state consumer protection law claims because she
was not harmed under those statutes. He holds that whether a
plaintiff must have a valid claim under every legal theory he seeks
to assert on behalf of a class goes to the propriety of class
certification.
Judge Alonso recognizes that asserting a class action under
consumer-protection statutes of multiple states may not be
manageable. Accordingly, the Court anticipates that it will stay
discovery on count III until it rules on class certification or
until some other ground provides reasonable assurance that there
will be a valid basis for discovery on these claims, as other
courts have done. The motion is denied as to count III.
D. Unjust Enrichment
ALDI argues that the Court should dismiss Rawson's unjust
enrichment count because it is duplicative of her other claims. In
response, Rawson argues that the elements for this count differ
from its other counts and thus it is not duplicative. But Rawson
ignores the fact that an unjust enrichment claim may not be
maintained where a contract exists between the parties covering the
same subject matter. And in the case, Rawson alleges a breach of
contract in the form of her breach of express warranty count. Judge
Alonso finds that the unjust enrichment claim is not pled in the
alternative and is, therefore, precluded by Rawson's breach of
contract claim. Count V is dismissed.
E. Injunctive Relief
Lastly with respect to ALDI's motion, Judge Alonso considers if
Rawson has standing to seek the injunctive relief she requests.
ALDI argues that Rawson lacks standing to pursue her injunctive
relief claim, citing, among other cases, Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank
Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. 2014) and Conrad v. Boiron,
Inc., 869 F.3d 536 (7th Cir. 2017). Rawson, on the other hand,
argues that she intends to represent a proposed class, which allows
her to maintain a claim for injunctive relief on the class's
behalf.
Judge Alonso holds that the Court follows Camasta and In re Herbal
Supplements, which reason that a plaintiff who only alleges a past
harm caused by a deceptive sales practice faces no "real and
immediate threat" such that she will be deceived by the same
practice after the deception is revealed, and therefore is not
entitled to pursue injunctive relief. In the present case, Rawson
does not allege that she continues to purchase ALDI's salmon
products -- indeed she confirms that she does not purchase these
products anymore. Although she may wish to continue buying goods
made with sustainably sourced salmon, Judge Alonso agrees with ALDI
that this allegation is simply too hypothetical to confer standing
to pursue injunctive relief. As such, he dismisses Rawson's request
for injunctive relief.
F. Amicus Brief
With respect to GSA's motion for leave to file an amicus brief,
permitting an amicus brief is discretionary. In the present case,
Judge Alonso does not find GSA's brief useful at this stage. Most
of GSA's proposed brief chronicles how BAP certification is
achieved and why it equates to industry-leading standards for
promoting responsible aquaculture. But the Court is addressing a
motion to dismiss, and thus is bound by the complaint's
allegations. The topics that GSA discusses largely relate to
factual matters outside the complaint. Moreover, GSA's position
that its BAP standards equate to industry leading standards for
aquaculture, and therefore do not make ALDI's "sustainable" label
misleading, are matters to be explored during discovery.
Certainly, GSA offers factual nuance not addressed by the parties,
but its brief would possibly be more useful if the case were at the
summary judgment stage. Simply put, considering GSA's factual
assertions now is not appropriate. Accordingly, the motion for
leave to file an amicus brief is denied.
III. Conclusion
ALDI's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
Judge Alonso grants the motion as to count V and Rawson's request
for injunctive relief. The motion is otherwise denied. He grants
the motions for leave to appear pro hac vice and denies Global
Seafood Alliance's motion for leave to file an amicus brief. ALDI's
answer was due on May 30, 2022. A status hearing is set for June 9,
2022, at 9:30 AM. The parties are directed to file an initial joint
status report in accordance with the Court's standing order by June
6, 2022.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 17, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6pses9d from
Leagle.com.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Seeks to Stay Briefing on Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN HAMILTON, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00434-PAB-STV (D.
Colo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order staying
briefing on the Class Certification Motion until 30 days after the
Court renders its decision on Defendant' Motion to Dismiss.
The Defendant also requests the Court order an expedited briefing
schedule on this Motion in which Plaintiff would have seven days to
submit his response and Amazon would have three days in which to
reply.
The Plaintiff filed suit, purportedly as a class action, against
Defendant in state court on January 14, 2022 and served Amazon on
January 18, 2022.
On February 17, 2022, Amazon timely removed the Complaint to this
Court. On March 3, 2022, Amazon filed the Motion, which seeks
dismissal of the Complaint in its entirety.
On March 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed his response to the Motion and
on April 7, 2022 Amazon filed its Reply.
On April 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Class Certification Motion.
The Plaintiff also filed the Motion for Order on April 14, 2022.
Amazon Services LLC offers many of the Web service platforms that
are Amazon offers.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 10,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LOTBCx
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David H. Miller, Esq.
Victoria E. Guzman, Esq.
THE SAWAYA & MILLER LAW FIRM
1600 Ogden Street
Denver, CO 80218
Telephone: (303) 551-7667
E-mail: dhmiller@sawayalaw.com
vguzman@sawayalaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jennifer S. Harpole, Esq.
Sarah K. Watt, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 800
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 629-6200
Facsimile: (303) 629-0200
E-mail: jharpole@littler.com
swatt@littler.com
ANNAPOLIS, MD: Faces Suit Over Health Problems in Public Housing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brooks DuBose reports that the city of Annapolis is suing its
housing authority and the federal agency that oversees it, alleging
they are at fault in two civil complaints brought by public housing
residents and their families.
Last May, Tamara Johnson and Tyonna Holliday, two public housing
residents, brought a class-action lawsuit against the city claiming
its failure to inspect their homes led to health problems, such as
asthma and lead exposure, for them and their children. Days before,
the family of DaMon Fisher filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against
the city and the housing authority, alleging Fisher's health
problems had been worsened by mold in his Harbour House apartment
and ultimately killed him.
Two months after a federal judge declined to dismiss the cases,
allowing them to proceed toward trial, Annapolis attorneys from the
City Law Office filed a third-party complaint against the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, alleging that because
the federal agency provides funding to the Housing Authority of the
City of Annapolis, it is ultimately responsible for the poor living
conditions and health issues claimed by Johnson, Holliday and
Fisher's family. The city filed a separate complaint against the
housing authority, which is a co-defendant in the Fisher case.
The claims made by the Fisher and Johnson plaintiffs against the
city " [result] from the policies and actions of HUD and HACA in
their failures to properly fund the properties and HACA to maintain
them in a safe and sanitary condition and not because of the city,"
city attorneys wrote. The city took the action because "HUD
actually caused all claims that plaintiffs assert against the city
due to its failure to act as required by applicable law, in
discriminating against the city, HACA, Mr. Fisher, HACA tenants and
in its insufficient funding and its failure to enforce of its own
maintenance requirements for HACA tenants' units."
The filing is not an admission that the allegations are true but
that HUD and HACA "have a role to play" in the litigation, City
Attorney Mike Lyles said Wednesday.
"Anytime a complaint to bring in other parties [is made] it's a
recognition that there may be other entities that have a role to
play in whatever is going on in the litigation," Lyles said. "We're
not alleging that anything is proven yet. These are just
allegations against the city. We believe those allegations are
unfounded and untrue, however, there may be other parties that
should be a part of this case."
Mayor Gavin Buckley said in a message he was "not really up to
speed" on the complaint filed by his law office, adding "but we
have always questioned why HUD are not at the table."
HUD did not return a request for comment.
HACA's counsel, Carrie Blackburn-Riley, provided a statement from
HACA stating the housing authority, led by Director Melissa
Maddox-Evans, was "deeply disappointed" in Lyles' decision "to
further jeopardize HACA through legal action when the city has been
fully apprised of the revenue losses HACA has sustained over the
past several years."
Since the pandemic began more than two years ago, Maddox-Evans has
pleaded with the city to help ease its financial troubles brought
on by lagging rent collection among tenants. Earlier this year, a
nearly $800,000 budget deficit forced the agency to cut staff and
reduce hours of some of its full-time workers.
"HACA has repeatedly pleaded with the city for local funding and
each time the city has declined to assist us," the statement read.
"HACA has tried continually to partner with the city to bring more
resources to our residents to improve their quality of life and
improve the city. . . ."
The class-action and wrongful death lawsuits have slowly made their
way through the U.S. District Court of Maryland over the last year.
Annapolis attorney Joe Donahue has partnered with the
Annapolis-based Holland Firm, to represent the plaintiffs in both
cases. They recently filed paperwork asserting that public housing
residents with similar situations to Johnson and Holliday have been
harmed, a necessary step in any class-action case.
In response to the city's complaint, Donahue and Peter Holland said
they had no comment beyond, "We look forward to our day in court."
Their clients are seeking financial damages for the alleged
violation of their civil rights. In April, U.S. District Judge
Catherine Blake issued a lengthy opinion denying a motion by
attorneys representing Annapolis and HACA to dismiss the cases.
They will now proceed to either discovery prior to a jury trial or
mediation between the parties.
In its countersuit, the city accuses HUD of "discriminatory
practices" against housing authority residents "made in reckless or
callous indifference or disregard of its statutory and regulatory
mandates."
"We thought it best to bring HACA and HUD into both cases because
the city is not responsible, and even if it was responsible, it
can't be responsible all by itself when the city doesn't own public
housing and doesn't fund public housing," Lyles said.
The Annapolis housing authority owns and manages a half-dozen
public housing properties throughout the city, representing about
800 units and around 1,500 residents. It is a separate entity from
the city, however, the City Council appoints members to HACA's
board of commissioners.
Several members of the Annapolis City Council said they were not
aware of the law office's filing.
"It's just mindboggling to me. It doesn't even appear that most of
the people in the administration were aware that this was going to
happen," said Ross Arnett, a Ward 8 Democrat. "This is not the way
to run a city."
Alderman DaJuan Gay, a Ward 6 Democrat whose district includes
multiple public housing communities, said he had a feeling tenants
would sue the city, prompting a response from the city.
"I am not happy," Gay said.
Lyles "has a good point," said Alderman Rob Savidge, a Ward 7
Democrat and a staunch environmental advocate, who equated the
situation to pollution enforcement on a worksite. The entity
responsible for those environmental violations should be held
accountable.
"If the accusations are proven true, then both HACA and HUD have
significant, if not ultimate, responsibility," Savidge said.
The council will meet for a closed session to discuss the
lawsuits.
Since they were constructed decades ago, the HACA properties have
fallen into disrepair with numerous residents complaining of mold
outbreaks, sewage leaks and other safety issues.
The troubles came to a head in 2019 when dozens of public housing
residents filed a federal lawsuit against the city and the housing
authority, claiming decades of racial discrimination culminated in
deplorable living conditions. The 52 plaintiffs, who were
represented by Donahue, ultimately settled for a combined $1.8
million.
Both the city and housing authority entered into consent decrees to
ensure the inspection and licensing of public housing properties
continued. The agreements included other training and policy
changes to protect tenants and require the city to fully support
HACA's redevelopment efforts and seek ways to increase the
affordable housing options in the city.
The litigation could impede those goals and disrupt plans between
HACA and the city to redevelop its crumbling properties, including
a $450,000 Choice Neighborhoods Planning Grant HACA received last
year to plan to redevelop its two oldest public housing complexes,
Harbour House and Eastport Terrace, the HACA statement said.
"This legal action risks that grant, which requires the city and
HACA to be good partners with each other," according to the
statement. "Now HACA must spend its already depleted resources to
defend an action that plaintiffs did not choose to include HACA as
a defendant." [GN]
APHRIA INC: Bid to Certify Class Vacated w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE APHRIA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 1:18-cv-11376-GBD-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge George B.
Daniels entered an order vacating without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify class.
Aphria, headquartered in Leamington, Ontario, is an international
producer and distributor of medicinal and recreational cannabis.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39R9WcW at no extra charge.[CC]
ARCARE INC: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Gilmore Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALICIA GILMORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-00123-DPM (E.D. Ark., May 19, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to safeguard the
personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and
similarly situated customers against cyberattack. The data breach
on the Defendant's network resulted to the unauthorized access of
its customers' sensitive personal information. Moreover, the
Defendant failed to provide timely and adequate notice to the
Plaintiff and other Class members that their private information
had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third
party and also failed to identify precisely what specific type of
information was accessed. The Plaintiff and Class members are at a
substantially increased risk of identity theft and fraud, and have
suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the
benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of
their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of
the attack, says the suit.
ARcare, Inc. is a healthcare provider, with its headquarters
located at 117 South 2nd Street, Augusta, Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
- and –
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM, LLC
2754 Erie Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
- and –
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 E. Court Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
ARGENT TRUST: Lloyd Sues Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMAAL LLOYD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARGENT TRUST COMPANY; HERBERT WETANSON;
GREGOR WETANSON; and STUART WETANSON, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-04129 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022) alleges violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Employee Stock Ownership Plan
("ESOP") trustee, Argent Trust Company ("Argent"), and the
Company's controlling managers and shareholders, Herbert Wetanson,
Gregor Wetanson, and Stuart Wetanson (the "Seller Defendants"),
caused the Plan to engage in prohibited transactions and breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the sale of the Company
to the ESOP for an inflated purchase price that far exceeded its
fair market value, and by arranging for continued payments to the
Seller Defendants in connection with the sale.
A proper evaluation of the Transaction would have accounted for
several important risk factors that limited the value of the
Company at the time of sale, including increasing labor costs and
rents, geographic concentration in the high-cost New York City
market, and the Company's low margins and its limited ability to
pass along costs to customers, says the suit.
The complaint further asserts that Argent and the Seller Defendants
did not give adequate consideration to these and other factors in
determining the sale price for the Company. To the contrary, the
Seller Defendants were focused on promoting the Company's value for
their own financial benefit, and Argent did not properly account
for their conflicts of interest and failed to conduct a rigorous
independent examination of the Transaction and the price paid by
the ESOP, the suit added.
ARGENT TRUST CO NA operates as an investment management firm. The
Company offers financial planning, trusts, and real estate
management services to families and organizations. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Eisenkraft, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 838-7797
Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
Email: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com
- and –
Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
Kai H. Richter, Esq.
Daniel R. Sutter, Esq.
Ryan A. Wheeler, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
Email: myau@cohenmilstein.com
krichter@cohenmilstein.com
dsutter@cohenmilstein.com
rwheeler@cohenmilstein.com
ARROJO STUDIO: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arrojo Studio, LLC.
The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Alcone Company, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02988 (E.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
ARROJO NYC -- https://arrojonyc.com/ -- offers world-class
hairdressing services to clients at our NYC salon locations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
AUGUSTINE INC: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Augustine, Inc. The
case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Augustine, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04176 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dana Augustine -- https://www.danaaugustineinc.com/ -- has
designed, manufactured, and sold diamond rings of extraordinary
quality and style since 1981.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
BACK MARKET: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Back Market Inc. The
case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Back Market Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04199 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Back Market -- https://www.backmarket.com/ -- is an online
marketplace for refurbished electronics.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
BAKOTIC PATHOLOGY: Tamraz Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Aaron Tamraz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Bakotic Pathology Associates, L.L.C.,
Bako Pathology Holdings Corporation, Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 37-02022-00008859-CU-MC-NC was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California on May 20, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00725-BAS-WVG to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Bakotic Pathology Associates, LLC -- https://bakodx.com/ -- is a
Medical Group that has only one practice medical office located in
Alpharetta, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M Treglio, Esq.
Mark D. Potter, Esq.
POTTER HANDY, LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (619) 933-3598
Email: jimt@potterhandy.com
mark@potterhandy.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Ian Charles Ballon, Esq.
Rebekah Strawn Guyon, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 586-6575
Fax: (310) 586-7800
Email: ballon@gtlaw.com
guyonr@gtlaw.com
BALAJI INVESTMENTS: Faces Black Suit Over Unpaid OT, Termination
----------------------------------------------------------------
FREDERICKA V. BLACK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BALAJI INVESTMENTS, INC., d/b/a
DAYS INN, and HARESH JARIWALA, Defendants, Case No. 0:22-cv-60969
(S.D. Fla., May 22, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages and retaliatory discharge in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as full-time hotel
employee from approximately June 01, 2018 until November 15, 2021.
Balaji Investments, Inc., doing business as Days Inn, is a
hospitality company located in Broward County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
BALBOA MANUFACTURING: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Balboa Manufacturing
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Balboa Manufacturing
Company, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04200-PAE (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Balboa Manufacturing -- http://www.balboamfg.com/-- is a
manufacturer in San Diego, California and was founded in 1998 with
the goal of designing and manufacturing products for specialized
markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
BARLEAN'S ORGANIC: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barlean's Organic
Oils, L.L.C. The case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Barlean's Organic Oils,
L.L.C., Case No. 1:22-cv-04178 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Barlean's -- https://www.barleans.com/ -- offers award-winning
health supplements trusted for 30+ years with best-selling
supplements including natural, vegan, & organic supplements, fish
oil, CBD, and omega-3.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
BAY CAFE: Suarez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
FLOR ALEXANDRA SUAREZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. THE BAY CAFE, 369 CORP. (D/B/A THE BAY CAFE)
and LARISA ARONOV, Case No. 1:22-cv-02904 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2022)
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Suarez worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff Suarez appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium, says the suit.
The complaint further asserts that the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff Suarez the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in
which she had to work over 10 hours a day.
Plaintiff Suarez is a former employee of the Defendants The Bay
Cafe and Larisa Aronov.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a Mediterranean
Restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
BCSS LTD: Knight Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michaella Knight, individually and on behalf of all, others
similarly situated v. BCSS, LTD., Case No. CACE-22-006820 (Fla.
17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., May 10, 2022), is brought for
violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act as a result of
the Defendant's unsolicited telephonic sales calls.
To solicit the sale of a consumer good or service; obtain
information that would or may be used for the direct solicitation
of a sale of consumer goods or services or an extension of credit
for such purposes; and to promote its consumer goods and services,
Defendant engages in telephonic sales calls to consumers without
having secured prior express written consent as required by the
FTSA. The Defendant's telephonic sales calls have caused Plaintiff
and the Class members harm, including violations of their statutory
rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of
their privacy. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory
damages on behalf of himself and the Class members, as defined
below, and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Florida.
The Defendant directs, markets, and provides business activities
throughout the State of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary Z. Zermay, Esq.
ZERMAY LAW, P.A.
203 Labelle Avenue
Fort Myers, FL 33905
Phone: 239-699-3107
Email: zach@zermaylaw.com
BERGER STEEL: Schwartzenberger Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Berger Steel
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Paul Schwartzenberger,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated v. Berger Steel Corporation, Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2022-00319703-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May
10, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Berger Steel Corporation -- https://www.bergersteel.com/ -- is a
Northern California based structural steel and miscellaneous metals
fabrication and erection company.[BN]
BEST BUY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed againts Best Buy Co, Inc. The
case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Best Buy Co, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04153
(S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Best Buy -- https://www.bestbuy.com/ -- is an American
multinational consumer electronics retailer headquartered in
Richfield, Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
BIORAY INC: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bioray, Inc. The case
is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bioray, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04180
(S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bioray -- https://www.bioray.com/ -- is a producer of natural
herbal medicine.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
BIOSKIN LASER: Polanco Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bioskin Laser LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Viktoryia Polanco, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bioskin Laser LLC,
Bioskin Laser II LLC, Santa Vaynshenker as an individual, Case No.
1:22-cv-04101-VEC (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
BioSkin Laser -- https://bioskinlaser.com/ -- is a specialty body
waxing studio offering premium quality depilatory services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Patrick Peter O'Donnell, Esq.
Roman Mikhail Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Phone: (718) 263-9591
Email: jamespodonnell86@gmail.com
avshalumovr@yahoo.com
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Rapisura's Bid to Remand Class Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ISAAC RAPISURA, an individual, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BMW OF NORTH
AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 TO
50, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00455 WBS AC (E.D. Cal.), Judge
William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California denies the Plaintiff's motion to remand the
action to San Joaquin County Superior Court.
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Rapisura commenced the class action against Defendant BMW
alleging violations of the California Labor and Business and
Professions Codes. The Defendant removed the action from San
Joaquin County Superior Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The Plaintiff now moves to
remand, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447, contending that the
Defendant has not established that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million.
II. Background
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and former
non-exempt California-based employees who were employed by the
Defendant since Feb. 3, 2018. He alleges the following nine claims:
(1) failure to pay all minimum wages, Cal. Lab. Code Section 1197;
(2) failure to pay all overtime wages, id. Sections 510, 1194; (3)
failure to provide rest periods and pay rest period premiums, id.
Section 226.7; (4) failure to provide meal periods and pay meal
period premiums, id. Sections 226.7, 512; (5) failure to maintain
accurate employment records, id. Section 1174 (6) failure to pay
wages timely during employment, id. Sections 204, 210; (7) failure
to pay owed wages at time of separation, id. Sections 201, 202; (8)
failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, id. Section
226; and (9) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal.
Bus. & Professions Code Section 17200.
The complaint does not allege a specific amount of damages, though
it does allege that removal under CAFA is not appropriate because
the amount in controversy is less than $5 million.
III. Discussion
The Defendant relies on payroll and human resources information
systems records for California employees from February 2018 to the
date of removal, March 10, 2022. It submits two declarations in
support, one from its counsel and one from its HR manager. The
Defendant calculates that approximately 400 employees are members
of the putative class. Based on those individuals' start and end
dates of employment, they worked a combined total of approximately
12,184 pay periods from Feb. 3, 2018 to the date of removal. Based
on the individuals' current or final rate of pay, their average
hourly rate is $25.28. They also generally are or were paid on a
bi-weekly basis and scheduled to work 40 or 36.25 hours per week.
In opposition, the Plaintiff does not submit any evidence, though
he is allowed to because he is contesting the Defendant's alleged
amount in controversy.
Judge Shubb holds that he will apply to the CAFA amount in
controversy estimate (i) the Defendant's minimum wage estimate of
$609,200; (ii) the Defendant's overtime wage estimate of
$924,034.56; (iii) the Defendant's estimate of $1,232,046.08, based
on four meal and/or rest premiums at the Plaintiff and the putative
class' average hourly rate of $25.28 and the 12,184 pay periods the
putative class worked; (iv) the Defendant's estimate of $1,518,300
for statutory penalties for failure to pay wages during employment,
excluding the 25% of allegedly withheld wages that the Plaintiff
and the putative class members can claim for subsequent violations;
(v) the Defendant's failure to pay wages at separation estimate of
$628,992; and (vi) the Defendant's wage statement penalty estimate
of $759,150.
IV. Conclusion
Based on reasonable assumptions, the amount in controversy
exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney's fees is approximately
$5,671,722.64, which exceeds the required $5 million under CAFA.
Judge Shubb expresses no opinion as to the Defendant's estimate on
attorneys' fees because the amount in controversy is met based on
the amount of damages and penalties, and any attorneys' fees would
only increase the amount in controversy. Therefore, consistent with
CAFA's "strong preference," the action will be heard in federal
court because it was properly removed by the Defendant.
The Plaintiff's motion to remand is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 17, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2s4d2wk3 from Leagle.com.
BONCHON USA: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bonchon U.S.A., Inc.
The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Bonchon U.S.A., Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02963 (E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bonchon -- https://bonchon.com/ -- is a global restaurant brand
best known for its crunchy double-fried chicken, savory signature
sauces, and unique pan-Asian menu.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
BREWER YACHT: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brewer Yacht Yard
Group Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf
of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Brewer Yacht
Yard Group Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04141 (S.D.N.Y., May
20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Brewer Yacht Yard was founded in 1879 by R.G. Brewer as a chandlery
and hardware store for boat owners and fishermen in Mamaroneck, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
155 East 55th St., Ste. 6a
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawpc.com
BRINKS INCORPORATED: Miller Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brinks, Incorporated.
The case is styled as Jordan Miller, for himself and all other
similarly situated persons v. Brinks, Incorporated, Case No.
2277CV00454 (Mass. Super. Ct., Essex Cty., May 20, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Contract / Business Cases."
The Brink's Company -- https://us.brinks.com/ -- is an American
private security and protection company headquartered outside
Richmond, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexandria A. Jacobs, Esq.
Walter H. Jacobs, Esq.
W. JACOBS AND ASSOCIATES AT LAW, L.L.C.
Willows Professional
Park 795 Turnpike Road
North Andover, MA 01845
BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Sheriff Can Earn From Inmate Calling Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KELLIE PEARSON & others v. SHERIFF OF BRISTOL COUNTY &
another, Case No. SJC-13110 (Mass.), the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts, Suffolk, answers "yes" to the following certified
question:
Did the Massachusetts Legislature, through the provisions of
St. 2009, c. 61, Sections 12(a), 12(c), 15, or G. L. c. 127,
Section 3, taken separately or together, authorize the
Bristol County Sheriff's Office to raise revenues for the
Office of the Sheriff through inmate calling service
contracts?
I. Introduction
The office of the sheriff of Bristol County (sheriff's office)
contracted with a third-party vendor, Securus Technologies, Inc.,
to provide inmate calling services in its correctional facilities.
Pursuant to this contract, Securus paid to the sheriff's office a
percentage of its monthly revenues and annual lump-sum amounts.
The Plaintiffs brought suit against the sheriff of Bristol County,
Thomas M. Hodgson (sheriff), and Securus, alleging that the sheriff
lacks authority to raise revenues for his office in this manner.
The sheriff, joined by Securus, argued that the necessary authority
may be found in St. 2009, c. 61, An Act transferring county
sheriffs to the Commonwealth (2009 act).
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has asked
the Supreme Judicial Court by way of certified question the
following: Did the Massachusetts Legislature, through the
provisions of St. 2009, c. 61, Sections 12(a), 12(c), 15, or G. L.
c. 127, Section 3, taken separately or together, authorize the
Bristol County Sheriff's Office to raise revenues for the Office of
the Sheriff through inmate calling service contracts?
II. Background
In May 2018, the Plaintiffs commenced a putative class action in
the Superior Court against the sheriff and Securus, alleging that
the agreement with Securus was an illegal kickback scheme resulting
in inflated rates for inmate telephone calls and impeding inmates'
ability to communicate with loved ones and counsel. The Plaintiffs
assert in relevant part that the sheriff lacked statutory authority
to collect revenues through contracts for inmate calling services.
They further contend that Securus is engaging in unfair and
deceptive trade practices in violation of G. L. c. 93A, Section 2,
by, among other things, paying the site commissions to the
sheriff's office and charging correspondingly higher telephone call
rates.
Securus removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under the Federal Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005. Following a June 2020 hearing, a judge in the District
Court granted the defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings
and denied the plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment and
class certification. Central to the judge's decision was the
conclusion that the 2009 act together with G. L. c. 127, Section 3,
authorized the sheriff's office to generate revenues from its
contract with Securus to provide inmate calling services. The
Plaintiffs moved to alter or amend the judgment and to certify a
question of law to the supreme Judicial Court.
The judge thereafter vacated the judgment and certified the
question now before us, pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 1:03, as appearing
in 382 Mass. 700 (1981): Did the Massachusetts Legislature, through
the provisions of St. 2009, c. 61, 55 12(a), 12(c), 15, or G. L. c.
127, Section 3, taken separately or together, authorize the Bristol
County Sheriff's Office to raise revenues for the Office of the
Sheriff through inmate calling service contracts?
The Supreme Judicial Court answers the question "yes," as it
concludes that Section 12(a) of the 2009 act, independently and
buttressed by Sections 12(c) and 15, authorizes the sheriff's
office to collect and retain revenues through inmate calling
services contracts.
III. Discussion
In Souza v. Sheriff of Bristol County, 455 Mass. 573, 574-575
(2010), inmates in Bristol County correctional facilities
challenged the sheriff's imposition of inmate fees to cover the
cost of their care, including medical care, haircut services, and
general education development (GED) testing. Rejecting the
sheriff's contention that he derived authority to impose the
challenged fees from his common-law duties to operate and
administer the county's correctional facilities, the Supreme
Judicial Court concluded that, "in the absence of specific
legislative authority," the sheriff lacked authority to impose such
fees on inmates to defray the cost of their incarceration.
The Plaintiffs contend that, as was the case in Souza, the sheriff
lacks the statutory authority to enter into inmate calling services
contracts that generate revenue for the office. As the Defendants
counter that such authority may be found in the 2009 act, the
Supreme Judicial Court turns its attention there, beginning with
Section 12(a).
As to Section 12(a), the Judicial Court concludes that Sect 12(a)'s
reference to revenues from inmate telephone funds refers to site
commissions paid by inmate calling services providers, such as
those at issue here. Given the Legislature's actual knowledge of
the sheriff's long-standing practice of collecting inmate
telephones revenue from inmate calling services providers, the
"absence of any legislative objection whatsoever in the 2009 act is
telling." Had the Legislature intended to put an end to the
sheriff's practice of collecting inmate telephone revenues, it
could have done so. Instead, Section 12(a) expressly provides that
the sheriff may continue to retain inmate telephone revenues even
after the transfer of the sheriff's office to the Commonwealth.
As to Sections 12(c) and 15, the Judicial Court opines that
sheriffs have been collecting revenue from inmate calling services
for decades. Section 12(c) confirms that the sheriff may retain
this statutorily authorized source of revenue. Additionally,
Section 15 works in tandem with Section 12(a). It provides in
relevant part that the "sheriff will retain administrative and
operational control over the office of the sheriff, the jail, and
the house of correction." As sheriffs are required by regulation to
provide inmates with "reasonable access to public telephones," 103
Code Mass. Regs. Section 948.10 (2009), confirms a sheriff's
continuing authority to enter into contracts for the provision of
inmate calling services.
Finally, as to their remaining arguments, the Plaintiffs present a
number of additional arguments. They assert that it would be
"illogical" and "entirely arbitrary" to conclude that the 2009 act
authorized the transferred sheriffs to collect inmate telephone
revenue because it would have the effect of permitting only some
sheriffs to contract for commissions with inmate telephone service
providers. However, the legality of a legislative scheme that
treats different offices of sheriffs differently is not before the
Judicial Court. Further, the Plaintiffs' contention that the
Legislature would not have formalized the sheriff's authority to
collect revenue from inmate calling services contracts in an
uncodified special act is unpersuasive. As noted, a special act has
the "same force and effect as a General Law."
IV. Conclusion
The Supreme Judicial Court answers the certified question as
follows: "Yes," 12(a) of the 2009 act, independently and buttressed
by Sections 12(c) and 15, authorizes the Bristol County sheriff's
office to collect and retain revenues through inmate calling
services contracts.
The Reporter of Decisions is to furnish attested copies of the
Opinion to the clerk of the Court. The clerk in turn will transmit
one copy, under the seal of the Court, to the clerk of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, as the answer to
the question certified, and also will transmit a copy to each
party.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 17, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2nzxerxa from Leagle.com.
Ian D. Roffman, Special Assistant Attorney General, for Sheriff of
Bristol County.
Jason D. Frank -- jason.frank@morganlewis.com -- for Securus
Technologies, Inc.
James R. Pingeon, for the Plaintiffs.
Daniel Greenfield -- daniel-greenfield@law.northwestern.edu -- of
Illinois, Kathrina Szymborski --
kathrina.szymborski@macarthurjustice.org -- of New York, & Maggie
Filler, for American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts &
others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.
CDR MAGUIRE: Reichman Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Safety Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL REICHMAN, BRETT MICHAEL BITNEY, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. CDR MAGUIRE, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 6:22-cv-00734-AA (D. Or., May 19, 2022) seeks
to recover liquidated damages for unpaid wages and overtime under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiff's claims under the FLSA are brought as a collective
action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of himself
and on behalf of all other similarly-situated persons who were/are
employed by Defendant with general worksite safety oversight
responsibilities, including, but not limited to, Safety Officers,
Monitors, and Arborists, (Safety Workers) on the Oregon Wildfire
Recovery Projects who work or worked in Oregon and its territories
and districts from the beginning of the OWR Projects in 2020 to the
final disposition of this action.
According to the complaint, CDR Maguire not only failed to pay
Plaintiffs their overtime wages, but in fact has an intentional
policy to not pay the Overtime Rate to any non-exempt employees
working for CDR Maguire in Oregon.
Mr. Reichman was employed between 2020 and 2022 by CDR Maguire to
work as a Safety Officer pursuant to contracts CDR Maguire had with
the State of Oregon for OWR Projects.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paul T. Cullen, Esq.
THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, APC
19360 Rinaldi St., No. 647
Porter Ranch, CA 91326
Telephone: (818) 360-2529
Facsimile: (866) 794-5741
E-mail: paul@cullenlegal.com
CELGENE CORP: July 11 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
IN RE CELGENE CORPORATION
SECURITIES LITIGATION
Case No. 2:18-cv-04772 (JMV) (JBC)
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
THIS NOTICE AFFECTS all persons and entities who purchased the
common stock of Celgene Corporation ("Celgene") between April 27,
2017 and April 27, 2018, and were damaged thereby (the "Class").
Excluded from the Class are: (i) Celgene; (ii) any directors and
officers of Celgene during the Class Period and members of their
immediate families; (iii) the subsidiaries, parents and affiliates
of Celgene; (iv) any firm, trust, corporation or other entity in
which Celgene has or had a controlling interest; and (v) the legal
representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of any such excluded
party.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure ("Rule") 23 and by Order of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, that the above-captioned
action ("Action") against Celgene, Scott A. Smith, Terrie Curran,
and Philippe Martin (collectively, "Defendants"), has been
certified as a class action on behalf of the Class. The Court has
appointed AMF Pensionsförsäkring AB ("Class Representative") to
represent the Class. The Action has not been adjudicated or
settled. This notice is not an admission by Defendants or an
expression of any opinion by the Court as to the merits of the
Action, or a finding by the Court that the claims asserted by Class
Representative in the Action are valid. This notice is intended
only to inform members of the Class that the Action is currently in
progress.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE LAWSUIT. This notice provides only a summary of the information
contained in the detailed, long-form Notice of Pendency of Class
Action ("Notice"). You may obtain a copy of the Notice from the
website for the Action, www.CelgeneSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by
contacting the Administrator:
Celgene Corporation Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91422
Seattle, WA 98111
(855) 648-0893
info@CelgeneSecuritiesLitigation.com
If you are a Class member you should receive a Postcard Notice
regarding the Action by mail. If you are a Class member and you do
not receive a Postcard Notice by mail, please send your name and
address to the Administrator so that you will receive any future
notices disseminated in connection with the Action.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Court-appointed Class Counsel:
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER
& CHECK, LLP
Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq.
Matthew L. Mustokoff, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com
www.ktmc.com
If you are a Class member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class. If you choose to remain a member of
the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than
retain your documentation reflecting your transactions and holdings
in Celgene common stock. You will automatically be included in the
Class, and you will be bound by the proceedings in the Action,
including all past, present, and future orders and judgments of the
Court, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Class member
and do not wish to remain a member of the Class, you must take
steps to exclude yourself from the Class.
If you timely and validly request to be excluded from the Class,
you will not be bound by any orders or judgments in the Action, and
you will not be eligible to receive a share of any money which
might be recovered in the future for the benefit of the Class. To
exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request
for exclusion postmarked no later than July 11, 2022, in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Pursuant to Rule
23(e)(4), the Court has discretion as to whether a second
opportunity to request exclusion from the Class will be allowed if
there is a settlement in the Action.
Further information may be obtained by contacting the Administrator
at info@CelgeneSecuritiesLitigation.com, or (855) 648-0893, or by
visiting the website www.CelgeneSecuritiesLitigation.com.
Please do not call or write the Court with questions.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHARISMA BRANDS: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charisma Brands, LLC.
The case is styled as Alexandra Hobbs, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Charisma Brands, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04187 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Charisma Brands, LLC -- https://www.charismabrands.com/ -- create &
market amazing toys, gifts & jewelry that make children &
grown-up's alike happy.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
CHICAGO, IL: Denial of Miller's Bid to Intervene in Ali Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals or the Seventh Circuit affirms the denial
of Glenn Miller's motion to intervene in the case, KHALID ALI,
Plaintiff v. CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants-Appellees, APPEAL
OF: GLENN MILLER, Petitioning Intervenor-Appellant, Case No.
21-1536 (7th Cir.).
I. Background
In this appeal, the Seventh Circuit considers the timeliness of
Appellant Miller's motion to intervene after a settlement was
reached in another person's civil rights suit that had not been
pled as a class action. In some circumstances, such a
post-settlement motion may be timely because the would-be
intervenor had reasonably relied on other parties -- such as
representatives of a putative class -- to protect her interests,
citing United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U.S. 385, 394-95
(1977). The present case, however, had not been litigated as a
class action. Plaintiff Khalid Ali brought the case as an
individual claim against the City of Chicago and multiple police
officers. He alleged that his constitutional rights were violated
when he was detained overnight on an out-of-county warrant for
another person with the same name and was not permitted to post
bond.
About one year into the litigation, the district court rejected
Ali's attempt to move for class certification without amending his
complaint. Ali then moved for leave to amend, but the court denied
that motion as well. Shortly after that, Ali settled his claim.
Appellant Miller was never a party to Ali's case, but he wanted to
challenge the district court's rulings. He moved to intervene,
represented by the same law firm that had represented Ali. The
district court denied Miller's motion as untimely. The court
reasoned that, unlike potential intervenors in other cases,
including United Airlines v. McDonald, Miller could not have relied
on Ali to protect his interests because Ali had not brought his
case as a class action.
On appeal, Miller raises three issues: (1) whether the district
court abused its discretion in denying his motion to intervene as
untimely; (2) whether the district court erred by striking Ali's
motion for class certification because the complaint did not
include any class allegations; and (3) whether the court erred by
later denying Ali's motion for leave to amend his complaint to add
class allegations.
II. Discussion
A. Appellate Jurisdiction
Before turning to the merits, the Seventh Circuit must clarify the
basis and scope of its jurisdiction. In general, federal courts of
appeals have jurisdiction over "appeals from all final decisions of
the district courts of the United States.
Mr. Miller invites the Seventh Circuit to reconsider the motions
panel's decision to dismiss his first appeal. Miller did not raise
this point in that first appeal as perhaps through a petition for
panel rehearing. The dismissal of that appeal became final long
ago. In any event, the motions panel correctly concluded that
Miller's initial appeal was not viable because the January 25 order
was not final and the district court had not ruled on his motion to
intervene.
The Seventh Circuit's jurisdiction over Miller's second appeal is
secure, however, because a denial of intervention "is a final,
appealable decision." Miller filed a timely notice of appeal once
the district court denied his motion to intervene, so the Seventh
Circuit has jurisdiction over that order under Section 1291.
B. Timeliness of Intervention
The decisive issue in the case is whether Miller's motion to
intervene was timely. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 permits
intervention on "timely motion." The Seventh Circuit reviews
timeliness decisions under Rule 24 for abuse of discretion, City of
Chicago, meaning that it will affirm if the district court's
decision was a reasonable one under the circumstances, regardless
of whether it would have made the same decision in the district
court's position.
For intervention under Rule 24, timeliness "is not limited to
chronological considerations but is to be determined from all the
circumstances." Four factors are relevant to whether a motion to
intervene is timely: "(1) the length of time the intervenor knew or
should have known of his interest in the case; (2) the prejudice
caused to the original parties by the delay; (3) the prejudice to
the intervenor if the motion is denied; (4) any other unusual
circumstances." This is essentially a reasonableness test:
"potential intervenors need to be reasonably diligent in learning
of a suit that might affect their rights, and upon so learning they
need to act reasonably promptly."
The Seventh Circuit holds that to be sure, where a party has failed
to intervene because she reasonably expected named plaintiffs or
other relevant parties to protect her interests, that expectation
is relevant to the timeliness inquiry. No such expectation would
have been reasonable in the case. Ali was litigating only his own
claim against the City; he was not representing Miller's interests.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
intervention.
The Seventh Circuit also holds that a class action "must be brought
as a class action." The complaint should identify the case as a
class action if the plaintiff intends to pursue a class action. Ali
did not bring his case as a class action. His complaint did not
include "a claim for relief" and "a demand for a remedy," notifying
the Defendant that it faced the prospect of class-wide liability.
There was no operative class action complaint in Ali's case.
III. Conclusion
The first issue is decisive. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Miller's motion to intervene as untimely.
That means he is not a party to the lawsuit and cannot pursue the
other challenges. Accordingly, the denial of Miller's motion to
intervene is affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 17, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3e2dtcv4 from Leagle.com.
CIRCLE GRAPHICS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Circle Graphics, Inc.
The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Circle Graphics, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04156 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Circle Graphics -- https://www.circlegraphicsonline.com/ -- prints
everything from billboards to canvas wraps to business signage, we
are the industry leader in value and innovation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
COMMUNITY MOBILE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morales Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELLINDA MORALES; AMANTINA SOSA; and NARAYNA CASTRO, individually on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COMMUNITY
MOBILE TESTING, INC.; and LABQ DIAGNOSTICS, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 7:22-cv-04190 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022) is an action against the
Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staffs.
COMMUNITY MOBILE TESTING, INC. operates mobile COVID-19 testing
locations in the State of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
Telephone: (718) 669-0714
Email: mgangat@gangatllc.com
CORPORATE SHIRTS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corporate Shirts
Direct, Inc. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Corporate Shirts
Direct, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04121 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Corporate Shirts Direct --
https://www.corporateshirtsdirect.com/index.html -- offers quality
custom company logo shirts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
COUNTER FACTORY: Havey Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPHINE HAVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE COUNTERTOP FACTORY SOUTHWEST, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00242-SHR (D. Ariz., May 23, 2022) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Project Manager
from May 2021 until March 2022.
According to the complaint, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees for the commissions they earned
based on sales they made. However, although they regularly or
occasionally worked more than 40 hours per week throughout their
employment with the Defendant, the Defendant failed to properly pay
their overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40
per workweek. The Defendant allegedly failed to include their
earned commissions when calculating their overtime pay, says the
suit.
On behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime premiums, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as the Court
may deem just and proper.
The Countertop Factory Southwest, LLC is a manufacturer of
countertops. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Courtney Lowery, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
E-mail: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com
CREATIVE NATURAL: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Creative Natural
Products, Inc. The case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Creative Natural
Products, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04168 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Creative Natural Products Inc. doing business as Chocolove --
http://www.chocolove.com/-- is a chocolate manufacturer with
headquarters and a manufacturing facility in Boulder, Colorado and
produces all-natural and organic chocolate bars.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
CYCRA INC: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cycra Inc. The case
is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Cycra Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04163 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Cycra -- https://www.cycra.com/ -- is a world leader in factory
trusted moto plastics and protection.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
DCOMM INC: Underpays Field Technicians, Mendez Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO MAISONET MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DCOMM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00490 (W.D. Tex., May 19, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for failure to pay the Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and Texas common law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a field technician.
DCOMM, Inc. is a cable installation and service company doing
business in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
lauren@a2xlaw.com
cgordon@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
DULCE DE LECHE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Linares Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
CAROLINA LINARES; ROXANA FALCON; IRIS DIAZ; and JHON JAIRO SOTO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. DULCE DE LECHE BAKERY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-02969 (D.N.J., May 20, 2022) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as bakery workers and
drivers.
DULCE DE LECHE BAKERY, LLC owns, operates and manages a retail and
commercial bakery company West New York, NJ. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 E. 59tth Street, Suite 3200
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
ENTERTAINMENT 2851: Fails to Properly Pay Dancers, Burgos Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE BURGOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENTERTAINMENT 2851 LLC, dba EMPEROR'S
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB fka "DIAMONDS;" MICHAEL TOMKOVICH; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-01171 (M.D.
Fla., May 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay
minimum wages, illegal kickbacks, unlawful taking of tips, and
forced tip sharing.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a dancer at
Emperor's Gentlemen's Club located at 5718 E Adamo Dr. Tampa,
Florida from 2002-2021.
Entertainment 2851 LLC, doing business as Emperor's Gentlemen's
Club, formerly known as Diamonds, is an owner and operator of an
adult-oriented entertainment facility, with its principal place of
business located at 5718 E. Adamo Dr. Tampa, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.
FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC
14 Northeast 1st Avenue, Suite 1001
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 722-6977
Facsimile: (786) 870-4030
E-mail: ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law
- and –
Alina S. Vulic, Esq.
CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN
8827 West Olympic Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 273-1230
Facsimile: (310) 858-1063
E-mail: kristensen@cz.law
avulic@cz.law
- and –
Ghazzaleh Rezazadeh, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford St.
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
E-mail: ghazzaleh@ellzeylaw.com
ESTEE LAUDER: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Biometric Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
Estee Lauder Companies is facing a second class action lawsuit over
"undisclosed collection of consumers' biometric facial scans,"
ClassAction.org reports. The lawsuit is being proposed in
Illinois.
The case states that consumers are concerned over facial-scanning
technology, and claims that there are clear mandates set by the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).
However, Estee Lauder has not informed or asked for consent from
users of its Virtual Try-On tool, lawyers claim. [GN]
ESTEE LAUDER: Illegally Collects Facial Geometry, Castelaz Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CELIA CASTELAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ESTEE LAUDER COMPANIES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04157 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Biometric Information
Privacy Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to inform in writing
and obtain written release from its website users prior to
capturing, collecting, or storing their facial geometry information
through its Virtual Try-On technology. Moreover, the Defendant
failed to develop and make publicly available a written policy for
retention and destruction of collected biometric identifiers. The
Plaintiff and other Class members have been injured by the
Defendant's conduct including the unknowing loss of control of
their most unique biometric identifiers and violations of their
privacy.
Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. is an American manufacturer of skin
care, makeup, fragrance, and hair care products, with its principal
place of business at 767 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall St., 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com
- and –
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and –
David A. Straite, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
One Grand Central Place
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2400
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (646) 933-1000
E-mail: dstraite@dicellolevitt.com
- and –
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
James A. Ulwick, Esq.
Sharon Cruz, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
julwick@dicellolevitt.com
scruz@dicellolevitt.com
- and –
Don Bivens, Esq.
DON BIVENS PLLC
Scottsdale Quarter
15169 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 205
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Telephone: (602) 708-1450
E-mail: don@donbivens.com
ETSY INC: Brown Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAMAR BROWN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ETSY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-04174-ALC (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.etsy.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (a)
lack of alt-text on graphics, (b) inaccessible drop-down menus, (c)
the lack of adequate prompting and labeling, (d) the denial of
keyboard access for some elements on the website, and (e) the
requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Etsy, Inc. is an online retail company doing business in New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
108-26 64th avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
Facsimile: (929) 333-7774
E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com
FIAT CHRYSLER: Olsen Files Bid for Transfer Actions
---------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff Scott Olsen in the proposed class action Olsen v.
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) US, LLC, 3:22-cv-00368-TWR-NLS,
moves for an order transferring the seven putative class actions
listed on the attached Schedule of Actions, as well as any
tag-along actions or other cases that may be filed asserting
related or similar claims, to the Northern District of California
(San Jose Division) before the Honorable Edward J. Davila or the
Central District of California (Southern Division (Santa Ana))
before the Honorable Cormac J. Carney for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anne Marie Murphy, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: (650) 697-6000
Fax: (650) 697-0577
Email: amurphy@cpmlegal.com
FIRSTENERGY CORP: $180MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 4
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein disclosed that on May 9, 2022, Chief Judge Alegenon
L. Marbley of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio granted preliminary approval of a $180 million
global settlement of all shareholder derivative cases, including
Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis and Electrical
Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, IBEW v. Charles E. Jones,
FirstEnergy Corp., et al., (S.D. Ohio) that of Miller v. Anderson
(N.D. Ohio) and In re FirstEnergy Corp., Stockholder Derivative
Litigation, (Crt. of Common Pleas, Summit County). The final
approval hearing is scheduled for August 4, 2022.
Under the proposed settlement terms, FirstEnergy will obtain a $180
million recovery funded by the Company's insurers - which
Plaintiffs represent as "among the largest derivative recoveries
ever achieved" in the United States and "three times greater than
any prior derivative recovery in the history of the Sixth Circuit."
Moreover, FirstEnergy will commit to a series of internal
governance reforms, including:
-- The departure of six Directors.
-- Active Board oversight of FirstEnergy's political spending
and lobbying activities.
-- Specific disclosures in the annual proxy statement issued
to shareholders.
-- Aside from the landmark settlement, since May 2021, both the
Southern District and Northern District courts issued
significant rulings in favor of the Plaintiff shareholders.
On May 11, 2021, the Southern District of Ohio denied Defendants'
motion to dismiss, holding, among other things, that Plaintiffs
adequately pled demand futility and sufficiently alleged that
FirstEnergy's proxy statements from 2018 through 2020 falsely and
misleadingly represented that the Board effectively managed risk,
particularly as it related to the Board's involvement in the Ohio
bribery scheme.
This decision represented an important victory for investors
because the Court further expanded upon the view that a company's
directors cannot solicit shareholders' votes using a misleading
proxy statement that conceals a company's illegal activities and
the company's true financial status. The Court held that a
misleading proxy statement can provide an "essential link" in
causing harm to a company for purposes of establishing Section
14(a) claims in the context of the re-election of directors. Read
more about the significance of the May 11, 2021 decision here.
Subsequently, First Energy formed a Special Litigation Committee
("SLC") and filed a motion to stay discovery for six months so the
SLC could evaluate the lawsuit and Plaintiffs' claims.
On September 16, 2021, the Northern District of Ohio, denied as
moot Defendants' motion to dismiss, citing the Southern District of
Ohio's May 11, 2021 Order and further denied FirstEnergy's request
to stay the proceedings in the Northern District in order to allow
FirstEnergy's newly formed SLC to evaluate the lawsuit. Judge Adams
noted that the SLC was not formed until July 1, 2021 -- after the
Southern District of Ohio dismissed Defendants' motion to dismiss
the derivative action.
Then on October 20, 2021, the Southern District of Ohio denied the
SLC's motion to stay, ordering discovery to commence without
further delay.
The SLC appealed both district courts' denials of the motion to
stay the litigation to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit and filed petitions for writs of mandamus to order
the district courts to stay the litigation. On December 16, 2021,
the Sixth Circuit granted Plaintiffs' motions to deny those appeals
and petitions for lack of jurisdiction.
Case Background
On January 25, 2021, Cohen Milstein and co-lead counsel, Saxena
White P.A. and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, filed an
amended, consolidated shareholder derivative complaint in the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of nominal Defendant
FirstEnergy, Co-Lead Plaintiffs Employees Retirement System of the
City of St. Louis and Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103,
I.B.E.W., and additional plaintiff Massachusetts Laborers Pension
Fund against certain current and former officers (collectively,
"Defendants") of FirstEnergy. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties, unjustly enriched themselves,
wasted FirstEnergy's assets, and violated Section 14 of the
Exchange Act of 1934.
On June 3, 2021, on behalf of the same plaintiffs, Cohen Milstein
and co-lead counsel filed an Interveners' Verified Shareholder
Derivative Complaint in Miller v. Anderson, No. 5:20-cv-1743-JRA,
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, asserting
the same claims as the January 25, 2021 complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Cohen Milstein represents Massachusetts Laborers Pension Fund in
both cases.
These cases arise out of what the United States Attorney for the
Southern District of Ohio declares "is likely the largest bribery,
money laundering scheme ever perpetrated against the people of the
state of Ohio." FirstEnergy stands accused of funneling over $60
million of FirstEnergy funds to the former Speaker of the Ohio
House of Representatives Larry Householder ("Householder") and
other public officials in exchange for favorable legislation,
causing the largest political bribery scandal in the history of
Ohio and one of the most egregious examples ever of the misuse of
corporate funds to undermine our country's system of representative
government.
FirstEnergy is one of the largest investor-owned electric utility
companies in the country. By late 2016, the Company was struggling
to remain profitable due to the ebb of demand in nuclear power.
Faced with these difficulties, Defendants decided to seek
"legislative solutions" to the Company's financial woes. Between
2017 and 2019, FirstEnergy transferred tens of millions of
dollars—while publicly reporting only a fraction of that
amount—to various entities controlled by Householder to support
Householder's bid for Speaker of the House, and to support other
House candidates that FirstEnergy and Householder believed would
vote for Householder's Speakership candidacy. Eventually, through
the use of these illegally secured funds, Householder was elected
Speaker of the House in 2019. Subsequently, Householder and his
associates introduced and passed HB6, which subsidized
FirstEnergy's power plants to the tune of over $1 billion dollars.
During the same period of time, FirstEnergy's board of directors
repeatedly rejected concerned shareholders' proposals to increase
transparency into FirstEnergy's political spending. Defendants'
ploy would meet a rude awakening, however, as on July 17, 2020, the
U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio filed an 80-page
criminal complaint with an FBI affidavit against two FirstEnergy
lobbyists, Householder, and Householder staff members, identifying
FirstEnergy in all but name. Various stakeholders have subsequently
filed lawsuits against FirstEnergy, both civil and criminal. On
July 22, 2021, FirstEnergy announced its entry into a historic
deferred prosecution agreement with the United States Department of
Justice, which included a fine of $230 million. In its DPA,
FirstEnergy admitted that it had "paid millions of dollars to
[Householder] . . . in return for [Householder] pursuing nuclear
legislation for FirstEnergy Corp.'s benefit in his capacity as a
public official."
The Southern District of Ohio case is Employees Retirement System
of the City of St. Louis and Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local
103, IBEW v. Charles E. Jones, FirstEnergy Corp., et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-04813-ALM-KAJ D, United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The Northern District
of Ohio case is Jennifer Miller v. Michael J. Anderson, et al.,
Case No. 5:20-cv-01743-JRA, United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.
FORREST C. FREEMAN: Dalton Sues Over ERISA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Connor Dalton and Anthony Samano, as participants in and on behalf
of the O.C. Communications Employee Partnership Program Plan and
Trust, and on behalf of a class of all others who are similarly
situated v. FORREST C. FREEMAN (aka CRAIG FREEMAN); ALERUS
FINANCIAL, N.A.; CARLA FREEMAN; LARRY L. WRAY; REGINAL D. WRIGHT;
RICK WYLIE; DON YEE; JOHN DOES 1-50; O.C. COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and
TAK COMMUNICATIONS CA, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00847-JAM-DMC (E.D.
Cal., May 18, 2022), is brought on behalf of participants in the
O.C. Communications Employee Partnership Program Plan and Trust,
which is an employee stock ownership plan ("ESOP") under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the
Defendants who were the fiduciaries of the ESOP.
The Defendant Alerus Financial, N.A. ("Alerus" or the "Trustee")
was the ESOP's trustee during the relevant period. O.C.
Communications, Inc. ("OCC") was the sponsor of the ESOP and the
ESOP's Plan administrator. TAK Communications CA, Inc. ("TAK CA")
is the successor in interest of OCC.
OCC was established in 1987 and was headquartered in Elk Grove,
California. OCC was a fulfillment provider for cable and phone
companies in the United States. OCC grew to a national brand with
30 offices in 12 states. The company footprint stretched from South
Florida to Washington State. By 2018, OCC had grown to more than
1,500 employees and 3,000 contract technicians. On September 30,
2011, OCC established the ESOP to help its employees save for
retirement and enjoy an ownership interest in OCC. An employee
stock ownership plan, like the ESOP, is a type of trust covered by
ERISA. ESOPs are designed to hold and safeguard the retirement
savings of the company's employee participants and give the
participants an ownership stake in their employer.
In December of 2011, the ESOP purchased 3,333,333 shares of OCC
common stock for $11.5 million, or $3.45 per share. The shares were
purchased with proceeds of loans from Defendant Forrest Freeman and
his spouse, Carla J. Freeman, as trustees of the C&C Freeman Trust.
Over time, OCC made contributions to the ESOP which made payments
on the loans, and shares were allocated participant accounts
reflecting their service to OCC according to the terms of the
ESOP's plan document. As of December 31, 2018, the ESOP
participants were informed that their ESOP shares were worth $2.21
per share.
On May 17, 2019, OCC entered into an asset purchase agreement with
TAK Communications CA, Inc. ("TAK CA"), whereby OCC sold
substantially all operating assets and liabilities to TAK CA for a
purchase price of $7.2 million. Business continued as usual after
the asset sale. TAK CA has many of the same officers as OCC,
conducts business from the same premises, and uses the same
employees and equipment.
On December 31, 2020, OCC redeemed the ESOP's outstanding,
allocated 2,342,027 shares of OCC for just $750,000, or $0.32 per
share, less than a tenth of the purchase price that the ESOP paid
for those shares. At around the same time, the Plaintiffs became
unable to access information about their ESOP accounts through the
website of the ESOP's third-party administrator, Principal
Financial. OCC was a successful and growing business throughout the
relevant period. OCC's asset sale to TAK CA was at a price below
the fair market value of OCC or its assets. In addition, OCC's
redemption of the ESOP's shares for $0.32 per share did not
represent the fair market value of the ESOP's shares.
No prudent or loyal fiduciary for the ESOP would have allowed those
transactions to occur under those circumstances. All Defendants
here were the ESOP's named fiduciaries under ERISA, and many were
also corporate fiduciaries as officers or directors of OCC. These
roles carried strict fiduciary duties to the ESOP to ensure that
OCC's asset sale to TAK CA and the redemption of the ESOP's shares
occurred at a price not less than fair market value, and that the
terms of the transactions were fair to the ESOP.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring these claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and for prohibited transactions against the ESOP's
fiduciaries. In addition, Plaintiffs request that the Court order
an accounting of the ESOP, to explain how the ESOP's assets could
have been sold for so little, and why none of the proceeds have
been distributed to the ESOP's participants. Finally, the
Plaintiffs seek relief for failing to provide requested information
which the Defendants were required to provide under ERISA within 30
days of the Plaintiff's request, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are former OCC employees and participants in the
ESOP.
Forrest Freeman was the President of OCC from 1987 until at least
2018.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
Jason H. Kim, Esq.
James A. Bloom, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Phone: (415) 421-7100
Email: TSchneider@schneiderwallace.com
JKim@schneiderwallace.com
JBloom@schneiderwallace.com
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Prevents Entry of Generic Inhalers, Dale Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELLIOT CONRAD DALE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC and
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00334-HFS (W.D.
Mo., May 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and State Antitrust
Statutes and for unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendants employed a scheme known
as "device hopping" to obtain patent protection and regulatory
exclusivities on its brand-name inhalers Ventolin and Arnuity
Ellipta with the goal of preventing generic inhalers from entering
the market. By device hopping, the Defendants manufactured over 60
years of uninterrupted patent and regulatory protection for its
Ventolin inhaler line and over 35 years of uninterrupted patent and
regulatory protection for its Flovent and Arnuity Ellipta inhaler
line, thus prohibiting competition from generics. GlaxoSmithKline
used its unlawfully obtained market exclusivity to charge
artificially inflated prices for inhalers, says the suit.
GlaxoSmithKline PLC is a pharmaceutical company, with its principal
place of business in Brentford, England.
GlaxoSmithKline LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of GlaxoSmithKline
PLC based in Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah T. Bradshaw, Esq.
SHARP LAW, LLP
4820 W. 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 901-0505
Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
E-mail: sbradshaw@midwest-law.com
GOLDEN STATE FC: Class Certification Briefing Entered in Trevino
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Trevino v. Golden State FC
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00120 (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe entered an order adopting the
May 11, 2022 stipulation of the parties' proposed briefing schedule
re motion for class certification, as follows:
(1) The Plaintiffs' five-page briefing submission on the
effect of Olean II on plaintiffs' motion for class
certification shall be filed on or before June 2, 2022;
(2) The defendants' five-page responsive briefing to
plaintiffs' submission shall be filed on or before June
16, 2022; and
(3) The plaintiffs' three-page reply to defendants'
submission shall be filed on before June 23, 2022. The
status Conference currently set for May 19, 2022, is
herby Vacated.
The nature of suit states other labor litigation.[CC]
GOLDWATER BANK: Aussieker Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goldwater Bank, et
al. The case is styled as Mark Aussieker, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Goldwater Bank, National
Association, Case No. 2:22-cv-00851-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal., May 19,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Goldwater Bank's -- https://www.goldwaterbank.com/ -- personal
bankers and lending professionals provide financial solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
GOODYEAR TIRE: Legg Sues Over Non-Exempt Workers' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN LEGG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00846 (N.D. Ohio, May 20, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate
the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, and
the Virginia Payment of Wage Law.
Mr. Legg worked for Goodyear as a non-exempt worker from September
2021 to March 2022.
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is a manufacturer of tires,
headquartered in Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
- and –
J. Corey Asay, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
333 W. Vine St., Ste. 1200
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (859) 286-8368
Facsimile: (859) 286-8384
E-mail: casay@forthepeople.com
GREAT AUSTRALIAN WINE: Dotson Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Great Australian Wine
Company, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Michael Dotson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Great Australian Wine Company, Inc., Does 1-10 inclusive, Case No.
2:22-cv-03393 (C.D. Cal., May 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Great Australian Wine Company --
https://greataustralianwinecompany.com/ -- offers Australian Wines
online, direct from their warehouse in Sonoma California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
GREENSKY INC: Ferguson Appeals Arbitration Ruling in Belyea Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David Ferguson filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled ELIZABETH BELYEA, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. GREENSKY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-01693-JSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.
Elizabeth Belyea, Heidi Barnes, Hazel Lodge, and David Ferguson
brought this putative class action against GreenSky of Georgia, LLC
and GreenSky, LLC, alleging violation of California's consumer
protection, lending and credit services laws.
GreenSky is a "financial technology company" which among other
things, acts as a loan servicer for "point-of-sale loans for
consumers to pay for home improvement, home repair, and healthcare
costs." Between 2016 and 2019, each of the Plaintiffs took out one
or more such loans to pay for home repair projects. In each
Plaintiff's case, the contractor or plumber ("merchant") suggested
that he could arrange financing for the home repair/improvement
project. Once the Plaintiff agreed, the merchant "procured a loan"
for the plaintiff using the GreenSky App. Each of these loans was
provided by a third-party bank -- generally, SunTrust Bank (now
Truist) or InTrust Bank -- which was serviced by GreenSky.
Ms. Belyea financed $23,600 through a GreenSky-serviced loan, with
GreenSky transferring those funds directly to the plumber. The loan
carried a 25% APR over seven years of monthly payments, with an
18-month interest-waived promotion. Lodge financed two loans for a
total of $14,607 through a GreenSky-serviced loan, with GreenSky
transferring those funds directly to the plumber. The loans carried
a purported 0% APR over four years of monthly payments. Ferguson
financed two loans for a total of $10,117.50 through the GreenSky
loan program. Each Plaintiff's loan included an undisclosed
merchant fee which was paid directly to GreenSky. As a result of
the unlawful fee, each Plaintiff paid more than they otherwise
would have, says the suit.
Ms. Belyea filed the putative class action in the Superior Court
for the County of San Francisco against GreenSky, alleging
violations of California's lending and credit services laws, as
well as consumer protection laws. GreenSky thereafter removed the
action to the Court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(2)(A) ("CAFA"). Less than a week later, GreenSky
filed a motion to compel arbitration which the Court denied finding
that GreenSky failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that Belyea agreed to arbitrate.
Ms. Belyea thereafter filed a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint, and following GreenSky's stipulation to amendment, the
now operative FAC was filed. The FAC added Heidi Barnes, Hazel
Lodge, and David Ferguson as representative plaintiffs. In response
to the FAC, GreenSky moved to compel arbitration of Belyea, Lodge,
and Ferguson's claims and moved to dismiss Barnes' claims.
David Ferguson is now seeking a review of the Order entered by
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on March 15, 2022, granting
GreenSky's motion to compel arbitration of his claims.
The appellate case is captioned as David Ferguson, et al. v.
GreenSky, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-15780, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 23, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant David Ferguson Mediation Questionnaire is due
today, May 31, 2022;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by June 23, 2022;
-- Transcript is due on July 22, 2022;
-- Appellant David Ferguson opening brief is due on August 29,
2022;
-- Appellees GreenSky of Georgia, LLC, GreenSky, Inc. and
GreenSky, LLC answering brief is due on September 29, 2022;
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID FERGUSON, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Kyla Jenny Gibboney, Esq.
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
Andre M. Mura, Esq.
David K. Stein, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP, LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9709
E-mail: kjg@classlawgroup.com
ehg@classlawgroup.com
amm@classlawgroup.com
ds@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Victoria S. Nugent, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Defendants-Appellees GREENSKY, INC., a corporation; GREENSKY OF
GEORGIA, LLC, limited liability company; and GREENSKY, LLC, limited
liability company, are represented by:
Barry Goheen, Esq.
FISHERBROYLES, LLP
4279 Roswell Road
Suite 208, No. 351
Atlanta, GA 30342
Telephone: (404) 793-3093
E-mail: barry.goheen@fisherbroyles.com
HARVEST HOSPITALITIES: Royal Suit Moved From D.N.J. to W.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NICOLE ROYAL, BENJAMIN REEVE, JENNIFER
RODRIGUEZ-LOPEZ, and JUAN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. HARVEST HOSPITALITIES, INC.,
HARVEST 2017, HARVEST 2051, HARVEST 2085, HARVEST 4694, and SATTAR
SHAIK, Case No. 3:21-cv-17737, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on May 23, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00753-CCW to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract and
failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law,
and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as servers and/or
non-server staff at Harvest restaurants in New Jersey at any time
between 2016 and 2021.
Harvest Hospitalities, Inc. is a company that operates IHOP
restaurants in the U.S., including New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
Twining Office Center, Suite 211
715 Twining Road
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
E-mail: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com
- and –
Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP LLC
First & Market Building
100 First Avenue, Suite 650
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 227-0763
Facsimile: (412) 774-1994
E-mail: jwc@employmentrightsgroup.com
- and –
Jeffrey W. Chivers, Esq.
CHIVERS LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (718) 210-9826
E-mail: jwc@chivers.com
HARVEST HOSPITALITIES: Wilson Suit Moved From E.D. to W.D. Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALEXIS WILSON, KAITLIN SHOEMAKER, and GABRIELLE
MARIE HAUZE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HARVEST HOSPITALITIES, INC., HARVEST 568 INC., HARVEST
3405 INC., HARVEST 3614 INC., and SATTAR SHAIK, Case No.
2:21-cv-04274, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on May 23, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00744-CCW to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract and
failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and
the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as servers and/or
non-server staff at Harvest restaurants in Pennsylvania at any time
between 2019 and 2021.
Harvest Hospitalities, Inc. is a company that operates IHOP
restaurants in the U.S., including Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP LLC
First & Market Building
100 First Avenue, Suite 650
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 227-0763
Facsimile: (412) 774-1994
E-mail: jwc@employmentrightsgroup.com
- and –
Andrew Santillo, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
Twining Office Center, Suite 211
715 Twining Road
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
E-mail: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
- and –
Jeffrey W. Chivers, Esq.
CHIVERS LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (718) 210-9826
E-mail: jwc@chivers.com
HEALTH CARE: Insurance Policy Discriminates LGBTQ, Murphy Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
KELSEY MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION d/b/a BLUE
CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-02656 (N.D. Ill., May 19, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for discrimination in health care on the basis of sex
under Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's health insurance policy
discriminates against the Plaintiff and similarly situated LGBTQ
(lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, or
non-binary) individuals by denying them equal access to fertility
treatment. The policy requires individuals who cannot conceive
through intercourse due to their sexual orientation or gender
identity to pay out of pocket for one year of medically based and
supervised methods of conception, including artificial
insemination, before the Defendant will provide them with coverage
for fertility treatments, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks to prohibit the Defendant from implementing and
enforcing this discriminatory policy in its Illinois health plans.
Health Care Service Corporation, doing business as Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Illinois, is an insurance provider, with its
principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
Mark R. Miller, Esq.
Molly C. Wells, Esq.
WALLACE MILLER
150 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 261-6193
Facsimile: (312) 275-8174
E-mail: eaw@wallacemiller.com
mrm@wallacemiller.com
mcw@wallacemiller.com
HFS OF LAUREL: Bennett Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Mississippi
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HFS of Laurel, Inc.
The case is styled as Charles Bennett, individually and on behalf
of those similarly situated v. HFS of Laurel, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00122-HSO-RHWR (S.D. Miss., May 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Act.
HFS of Laurel Inc is located in Hattiesburg, Mississippi and is
part of the Business Support Services Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael T. Ramsey, Esq.
SHEEHAN LAW FIRM, PLLC - Ocean Springs
429 Porter Avenue
Ocean Springs, MS 39564
Phone: (228) 875-0572
Email: mike@sheehanramsey.com
HH INTERMODAL: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Spotters
--------------------------------------------------------------
DEMETRIUS WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HH INTERMODAL LLC, JIMMY TRUMBULL,
and BILLY HOGAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02649 (N.D. Ill., May
19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated spotters overtime pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a spotter in Illinois
from September 2021 to April 2022.
HH Intermodal LLC is a provider of logistics solutions, with
principal offices in Bloomindale and Bartlett, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 656-3600
Facsimile: (215) 567-2310
E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com
- and –
Jessica R. Brown, Esq.
WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
77 W. Washington St., Suite 2120
Chicago, IL 6060
E-mail: jbrown@wwdlaw.com
HUMBL LLC: Pasquinelli Sues Over Decline of Common Stock Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATT PASQUINELLI and BRYAN PAYSEN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HUMBL, LLC, BRIAN
FOOTE, JEFFREY HINSHAW, and GEORGE SHARP, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-00723-AJB-BLM (S.D. Cal., May 19, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Sections 5 and 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of
1933.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding HUMBL's business and operations
to trade HUMBL common stock and/or the unregistered HUMBL Exchange
Traded Index (ETX) securities at artificially inflated prices
between November 21, 2020 and May 19, 2022. Specifically, the
Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the HUMBL Pay App did not
have even the basic functionality that it promised investors; and
(2) that several of its hyped international business partnerships
had a very low chance of contributing material revenues to the
company's bottom line. As a result, the company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times, the
suit asserts.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the company's
securities, the Plaintiffs and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, added the suit.
HUMBL LLC is a mobile financial services company, with its
principal executive offices located at 600 B Street, Suite 300, San
Diego, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
- and –
Sean T. Masson, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 233-6444
Facsimile: (212) 233-6334
E-mail: smasson@scott-scott.com
INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL: Pena Sues Over Penuma's FDA-Cleared Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD PENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICES, INC., MENOVA
INTERNATIONAL, INC., GESIVA MEDICAL, LLC, JAMES J. ELIST M. D., a
Medical Corporation, and Dr. James ELIST, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-03391 (C.D. Cal., May 19, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for violation of California's False Advertising Law,
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition
Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false and
misleading advertising and marketing of a silicone penile implant
device known as Penuma. The Defendants falsely and misleadingly
tout the device and its surgical procedure as "FDA-cleared," giving
reasonable consumers the false impression that the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that Penuma is safe and
effective for cosmetic penis enlargement procedures in men with
healthy, normal bodies. However, Penuma is not safe and effective
nor is it FDA-cleared for cosmetic penile enlargement. Instead,
Penuma is FDA-cleared only for use in the cosmetic correction of
soft tissue deformities. As a result of the Defendants'
misrepresentations and omissions, the Plaintiff and similarly
situated consumers have suffered an ascertainable loss of money,
namely, the cost of purchasing the Penuma device and procedure.
International Medical Devices, Inc. is a manufacturer of medical
devices, with its principal place of business located at 717 N.
Maple Drive, Beverly Hills, California.
Menova International, Inc. located at 8500 Wilshire Blvd., Suite
707, Beverly Hills, California.
Gesiva Medical, LLC is a medical company, headquartered at 6385 Old
Shady Oak Road, Suite 250, Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
James J. Elist M.D. is a medical corporation, headquartered at 8500
Wilshire Blvd., Suite 707, Beverly Hills, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
CADDELL & CHAPMAN
P.O. Box 1311
Monterey, CA 93942
Telephone: (713) 751-0400
Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
cbc@caddellchapman.com
aet@caddellchapman.com
INTERVET INC: Goodman Files Suit in D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Intervet, Inc. The
case is styled as Cathy Goodman, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Intervet, Inc., doing business as:
Merck Animal Health doing business as: Home Again, Case No.
2:22-cv-02926 (D.N.J., May 19, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Intervet Inc. doing business as Merck Animal Health --
http://www.merck-animal-health.com/-- develops, manufactures and
markets abroad range of veterinary medicines and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Nicole Edelsberg, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
3331 Sunset Avenue
Ocean, NJ 07712
Phone: (305) 610-5223
Email: rachel@dapeer.com
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Monroe Central Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MONROE CENTRAL 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-03016-WHO (N.D. Cal., May 23, 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, the suit says.
Monroe Central School Corporation is a public school district with
its offices located in Parker City, Indiana.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
JUUL LABS: Faces Florence One Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FLORENCE ONE SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP
MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-03010-WHO (N.D. Cal., May 23, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of South Carolina 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.
Florence One Schools is a school district with its offices located
on 319 South Irby Street, Florence, South Carolina.
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:
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court, Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Philip C. Federico, Esq.
Brent P. Ceryes, Esq.
Matthew P. Legg, Esq.
SCHOCHOR, FEDERICO & STATON, P.A.
The Paulton
1211 St. Paul Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
E-mail: pfederico@sfspa.com
- and –
Leonidas Stavrinakis, Esq.
STAVRINAKIS LAW FIRM LLC
One Cool Blow Street, Suite 201
Charleston, SC 29403
E-mail: leonidaaasstav@outlook.com
- and –
Khaldoun A. Baghdadi, Esq.
Conor M. Kelly, Esq.
WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER
650 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94108
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Upshur County Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
UPSHUR COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, UPSHUR COUNTY, STATE OF WEST
VIRGINIA, 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-02997 (N.D. Cal., May 20, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of
West Virginia 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.
Upshur County Board of Education (UCBOE) is a school district with
its administrative offices located at 102 Smithfield Street,
Buckhannon, West Virginia.
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:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
Davis S. Vaughn, 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
Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq.
THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC
716 Lee St. E.
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 344-9322
E-mail: Rusty@RustyWebb.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Dix Suit Moved From D. Kan. to W.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERT DIX, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH
AMERICA LLC; PHILIPS HOLDING USA, INC.; and PHILIPS RS NORTH
AMERICA LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02158, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on May 23, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00755-JFC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged strict products
liability, negligent design, negligent failure to warn, negligent
manufacturing, negligence/gross negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, fraud through silence, breach of express
warranties, breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose, breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, and violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection
Act by manufacturing and selling Continuous Positive Airway
Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP)
devices containing polyester-based polyurethane sound abatement
foam (PE-PUR Foam), says the suit.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its
principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096
BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Philips Holding USA, Inc. is a company that manufactures and
distributes medical systems and lighting appliances, headquartered
in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and
markets medical devices with its principal place of business
located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brad Kuhlman, Esq.
Jamie Rodriguez, Esq.
KUHLMAN & LUCAS, LLC
4700 Belleview Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 799-0330
Facsimile: (816) 799-0336
E-mail: brad@kuhlmanlucas.com
jamie@kuhlmanlucas.com
KYMA HUDSON: Mera Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
DANILO MERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KYMA HUDSON LLC, d/b/a KYMA, KYMA NYC LLC,
d/b/a KYMA, OLD NORTHERN BOULEVARD RESTAURANT LLC, d/b/a KYMA, 217
W85 LLC, d/b/a ELEA, MERKOURIOS ANGELIADES, and STEVE TENEDIOS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04114 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the New York State
Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff asserts wage-and-hour violations including unpaid
wages, including overtime; unpaid wages due to timeshaving; unpaid
wages due to invalid tip credit; improperly deducted meal credits;
and illegally retaining gratuities. Moreover, the Plaintiff alleges
deprivation of his statutory rights as a result of the Defendants'
discriminatory employment practices based on his sexual
orientation.
The Plaintiff was hired to work as a busboy for at Kyma Hudson
Yards restaurant located at 445 West 35th Street, New York, New
York in July 2021. Around January 2022, his position was changed to
a runner, and he continued working for the Defendants until March
18, 2022.
Kyma Hudson LLC is an owner and operator of a Greek taverna
inspired restaurant located in New York.
Kyma NYC LLC is an owner and operator of a Greek taverna inspired
restaurant located in New York.
Old Northern Boulevard Restaurant LLC is an owner and operator of a
Greek taverna inspired restaurant located in New York.
217 W85 LLC, doing business as Elea, is an owner and operator of a
Greek taverna inspired restaurant located in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1180
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
LADY GREEN: Underpays Recycling Employees, Infante Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE M. INFANTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LADY GREEN MIAMI RECYCLING CO. and MICHELE
A. SALAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-21576 (S.D. Fla., May 22,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Infante was employed by the Defendants as a recycling and
cleaning employee from approximately December 9, 2019 until May 26,
2021.
Lady Green Miami Recycling Co. is a waste pickup and recycling
company, located in Miami, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
LAFONCE LATHAM: Ballard Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN BALLARD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAFONCE LATHAM d/b/a WILSON
FUNERAL HOMES, Defendant, Case No. 3:2-cv-00127-JM (E.D. Ark., May
23, 2022) brings this complaint as a collective action against the
Defendant for its alleged illegal pay practices that violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
employee, claims that he and other similarly situated hourly-paid
employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per week throughout
their employment with the Defendant. However, the Defendant denied
them of 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. Specifically, the Plaintiff
received the same pay of $600.00 a week despite working between 41
hours and 49 hours in a week, says the suit.
On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated hourly-paid
employees, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest, reasonable
attorney's fees, litigation costs, and other relief as the Court
may deem necessary, just and proper.
Lafonce Latham d/b/a Wilson Funeral Homes provides funeral, burial,
and cremations services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris Burks, Esq.
WH LAW WE HELP
1 Riverfront Pl. – Suite 745
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Tel: (501) 891-6000
E-mail: chris@wh.law
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Villanueva Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CINDY VILLANUEVA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-02607, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on May 19, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-21548-RNS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence, breach of
contract, breach of implied contract, and violations of the
California Consumer Privacy Act, the California Customer Records
Act, the California Constitution's Right to Privacy, and the Unfair
Competition Law by failing to employ reasonable and appropriate
measures to protect customers' personally identifiable information
(PII) against unauthorized access.
Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC is a mortgage loan servicer, with its
principal place of business in Coral Gables, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
Nicolas W. Tomas, Esq.
LEBE LAW, APLC
777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90021
Telephone: (213) 444-1973
E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com
Nicolas@lebelaw.com
LEIDOS INC: Waters Labor Suit Moved From N.D. Ill. to E.D. Va.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TAMEKA PATRICE WATERS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. LEIDOS, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-07733, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on May 19, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Virginia assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-00570-MSN-TCB to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged discriminatory
employment practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964.
Leidos Inc., is an American defense, aviation, information
technology and biomedical research company, headquartered in
Reston, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert A. Holstein, Esq.
HOLSTEIN & MUTH, LLC
130 N. Garland Court, Suite 1906
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 906-8000
E-mail: Holsteintobert3@gmail.com
LYFT INC: Haider Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Bigu Haider, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled BIGU HAIDER and MOHAMMAD ISLAM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v.
LYFT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02997, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The lawsuit arises from the Defendant's practice of making
additional deductions from within passengers' fares equal to the
cost of sales taxes and the Black Car Fund (BCF) surcharge in
violation of its contracts with the Plaintiffs and all others
similarly-situated current and former New York City drivers who
worked at any time for the Defendant between November 24, 2014 and
August 8, 2017. The Plaintiffs and Class members claim that the
Defendant engaged in deceptive practices by misrepresenting illegal
tax and BCF deductions as administrative fees in order to enrich
the company at the drivers' expense.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 24, 2021, the
District Court granted Lyft's motion to compel arbitration under
state law and stayed the case pending the outcome of arbitration.
Judge Alison J. Nathan found that the drivers agreed that Delaware
law would govern the arbitrability of their claims and, because
they do not contest that their claims are arbitrable under Delaware
law, Lyft is entitled to compel arbitration. She also found that
Islam is collaterally estopped from relitigating the arbitrability
of his claims under Lyft's earlier terms of service.
The Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the
Order which the Court denied on May 11, 2022 through a Memorandum
Opinion & Order entered by Judge Nathan. The Court further denied
their requests to lift the stay or to certify an issue for
interlocutory appeal.
The Plaintiffs now seeking a review of Judge Nathan's order.
The appellate case is captioned as Haider v. Lyft, Inc., Case No.
22-1140, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on May 23, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Bigu Haider, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, as class representatives; and
Mohammad Islam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, as class representatives, are represented by:
Jeanne E. Mirer, Esq.
JULIEN & MIRER, PLLC
1 Whitehall Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 231-2235
E-mail: jmirer@mmsjlaw.com
- and -
Zubin Soleimany, Esq.
NEW YORK TAXI WORKER'S ALLIANCE
31-10 37th Avenue
Long Island City, NY 11101
Telephone: (718) 706-9892
E-mail: zsoleimany@nytwa.org
Defendant-Appellee Lyft, Inc. is represented by:
Matthew David Ingber, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 506-2373
E-mail: mingber@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 263-3328
E-mail: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com
MALLINCKRODT PLC: $65.75MM Settlement to be Heard on July 28
------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PATRICIA A. SHENK,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
MALLINCKRODT PLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00145-DLF
CONSOLIDATED ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND SETTLEMENT HEARING
TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Mallinckrodt plc ("Mallinckrodt") common stock during the period
from October 6, 2015 through November 6, 2017, inclusive, and
allegedly suffered damages as a result.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, MALLINCKRODT,
ANY OTHER DEFENDANTS OR THEIR COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS NOTICE, THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, OR YOUR
ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO
LEAD COUNSEL OR THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR, WHOSE CONTACT INFORMATION
IS PROVIDED BELOW.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia, that the above-captioned litigation
(the "Action") has been preliminarily certified as a class action
for the purposes of settlement only on behalf of the Class, except
for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Class by
definition as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated May 18, 2021, as amended on July 22, 2021 (the
"Stipulation").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Lead Plaintiff, on behalf of itself
and all members of the Class, and Mallinckrodt, Mark C. Trudeau,
and Matthew K. Harbaugh (collectively, "Defendants") have reached a
proposed settlement of the Action for $65,750,000.00 in cash (the
"Settlement") payable from the proceeds of certain D&O Policies, as
defined in the Stipulation, that, if approved, will resolve all
claims asserted against the Released Defendant Parties (identified
in the Notice referred to below).
A hearing will be held on July 28, 2022 at 10 a.m. before the
Honorable Dabney L. Friedrich at the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia, 333 Constitution Avenue, Courtroom
14, Washington D.C. 20001, or as may be undertaken via a remote
proceeding such as Zoom or by telephone, for the following
purposes: (a) to determine whether the proposed Settlement, on the
terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation, is fair,
reasonable and adequate, and should be approved by the Court; (b)
to determine whether a Judgment substantially in the form attached
as Exhibit 5 to the Preliminary Approval Order should be entered
dismissing the Action and all claims asserted against the
Defendants therein, with prejudice, and releasing all Released
Claims as against the Released Parties (as defined in the
Stipulation); (c) to determine whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation for the proceeds of the Settlement is fair and
reasonable and should be approved; (d) to determine whether the
motion by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved; and (e) to
consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the
Court in connection with the Settlement ("Settlement Hearing"). The
Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without
providing another notice. Class Members should check the Settlement
Class website in advance of the Settlement Hearing to determine
whether that hearing will occur in person at the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia or via a remote link or
teleconference. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to
receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the full
Notice of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses, and Settlement Hearing (the "Notice"), and the
Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Mallinckrodt
PLC Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 170707,
Milwaukee, WI 53217. Copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim and
Release Form can also be downloaded from the websites maintained by
the Claims Administrator, www.MallinckrodtSecuritiesLitigation.com,
and by Lead Counsel, www.barrack.com.
If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a
valid Proof of Claim and Release Form to the Claims Administrator
either online at www.MallinckrodtSecuritiesLitigation.com no later
than
October 27, 2022 or via mail, postmarked no later than October 27,
2022. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Proof of
Claim and Release Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
received no later than June 28, 2022, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be
eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement.
Any objections to (a) the Settlement, (b) the proposed Judgment,
(c) the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or (d) Lead Counsel's
request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
litigation expenses, including any request for reimbursement of
costs and expenses for Lead Plaintiff, must be filed with the Court
and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' counsel such that
they are received no later than June 28, 2022, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice. Objections may not be
submitted by persons who exclude themselves from the Class.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim
and Release Form, may be made to Lead Counsel:
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
Jeffrey W. Golan
Jeffrey B. Gittleman
3300 Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 963-0600
jgolan@barrack.com
jgittleman@barrack.com
Requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release Form should
be made out to:
Mallinckrodt PLC Securities Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 170707
Milwaukee, WI 53217
(414) 921-0496 (in the U.S. and Canada)
(877) 315-0590 (outside the U.S. and Canada)
info@MallinckrodtSecuritiesLitigation.com
By Order of the Court
MAVERICK TUBE: Whitfield Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, AMWA
------------------------------------------------------------
QUINTISHA WHITFIELD v. MAVERICK TUBE CORPORATION, Case No.
3:22-cv-00124-BRW (E.D. Ark., May 19, 2022) seeks declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a
result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other
hourly-paid employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
Plaintiff Quintisha Whitfield was employed by Defendant as an
hourly-paid within the three years.
Maverick Tube Corporation is a manufacturer of tubular products in
the energy industry for exploration, production, and transmission,
as well as industrial tubing products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris Burks, Esq.
WHLAW I WE HELP
Riverfront Pl. -- Suite 745
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Telephone: (501) 891-6000
E-mail: chris@wh.law
MCD PIZZA: Fails to Reimburse Automobile Expenses, Harper Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RONALD HARPER, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. MCD PIZZA INC., and MURAT COSKUN,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02002-KSM (E.D. Penn.,
May 23, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately
January 2008 to Present as a delivery driver at the Defendants'
Domino's store located in Philadelphia, PA.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated delivery drivers were required by the Defendant to
maintain and pay for safe, legally-operable, and insured
automobiles when delivering pizza and other food items. As a
result, they have incurred automobile expenses while delivering
pizza and other food items for the primary benefit of the
Defendants. But, the Defendant systematically failed to adequately
reimburse its delivery drivers' automobile expenses due to its
reimbursement policy that reimburses drivers below the IRS business
mileage reimbursement rate and/or much less than a reasonable
approximation of its drivers' automobile expenses. Consequently,
the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated delivery drivers' net
wages are diminished beneath the federal minimum wage requirements,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action against
the Defendants seeking for compensatory damages as a result of its
FLSA violations. The Plaintiff also seeks for liquidated damages,
litigation costs and attorney's fees, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and other relief as the Court deems fair and equitable.
MCD Pizza Inc. operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.
Murat Coskun is the director of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C.
120 Gibrator Road, Suite 218
Horsham, PA 19044
Tel: (215) 496-8282
Fax: (215) 754-4443
E-mail: phoward@smbb.com
MERCADITO LA: Fails to Pay Wages Owed, Garza FLSA Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABRAN GARZA and RUTH NOHEMY RIVAS DE MERCADO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MERCADITO LA
MEXICANA, LLC, BRENDA RUIZ, and CARLOS RUIZ, Defendants, Case No.
4:22-cv-01636 (S.D. Tex., May 20, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for failure to pay wages owed in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Garza was employed as a butcher, cashier, and all-around
janitor for the Defendants from May of 2015 through February 28,
2022.
Ms. Mercado was employed by the Defendants as a kitchen helper from
October 2020 through October 2021.
Mercadito La Mexicana, LLC is a restaurant owner and operator based
in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq.
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
Houston, TX 77018
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
E-mail: tpadgett@buenkerlaw.com
jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Cars Have Defective Braking System, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY ROBINSON, THOMAS STEFANOPOULOS, and FRANCY DIAZ PEREZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, MERCEDES-BENZ AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, and
MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, Case No. 1:22-cv-02900
(D.N.J., May 18, 2022) alleges that the Defendants failed to inform
consumers of the potentially deadly braking system installed in
certain 2006-2012 ML-Class, GL-Class, and R-Class vehicles ("Class
Vehicles"), and they failed to repair or replace the defective
braking system in a timely manner in these vehicles sold or leased
to consumers nationwide, including Plaintiffs.
According to the complaint, the ability of a vehicle to stop when
the driver pushes on the brake pedal cannot be overstated -- it is
a vehicle's paramount safety feature. Properly functioning and
defect free brakes are essential to the safety of the driver,
passengers, occupants of other vehicles in proximity, and innocent
bystanders. The braking systems equipped in all Class Vehicles are
plagued by a design defect that leads to partial or total loss of
braking capability (the Brake Defect”). The Brake Defect is
present at the point of purchase and manifests in the Class
Vehicles as a result of accumulating moisture in the brake booster
housing unit, which causes corrosion and results in reduced brake
performance or brake failure, the suit says.
This Defect is common to all Class Vehicles and is a clear safety
hazard that was within the exclusive knowledge of Defendants and
was never disclosed to any member of the Class prior to purchase.
The Defendants have had actual knowledge of the Defect since at
least June 15, 2009, when Mercedes issued a Technical Service
Bulletin (TSB) to its network of dealers that warned of the
dangerous impact corrosion may have on the brake components of the
Class Vehicles manufactured to date. Defendants knew or should have
known of the Defect much earlier due to pre-production testing,
failure mode analysis, and reports to authorized dealers, repair
centers, and complaints to the NHTSA. Nevertheless, Defendants
chose to omit material information about the Brake Defect and not
to disclose these problems to Plaintiff and the Class, so that they
could continue to profit from the sale and lease of the Class
Vehicles, added the suit.
As a direct result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct, the
Plaintiffs and members of the Class have suffered damages,
including deprivation of the benefit of their bargain by overpaying
for the Class Vehicles at the time of sale or lease.
Plaintiff Robinson is an individual residing in Vineland, New
Jersey. The Plaintiff purchased a pre-owned 2010 Mercedes-Benz
GL450 (for purposes of Plaintiff’s allegations, the “Class
Vehicle”) for personal, family, and/or household use on or around
March of 2022 from A. Estates Inc. in Vineland, New Jersey.
The Defendants manufacture vehicles sold under the Mercedes brand
throughout the United States. The Defendants designed,
manufactured, distributed, marketed, and/or sold the Class Vehicles
in the United States. The Defendants also provide service and
maintenance for the Class Vehicles through their extensive network
of authorized dealers and service providers nationwide.
Mercedes marketed, distributed, and warranted the Class Vehicles in
the United States in a uniform manner.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Telephone: (973) 639-9100
Facsimile: (973) 679-8656
E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
cayers@seegerweiss.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq.
Jordan M. Steele, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
cbartlett@carellabyrne.com
jsteele@carellabyrne.com
MILLER ENERGY: $35MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Lewis Cosby, Eric Montague, and Martin
Ziesman, as Co-Trustee for the Carolyn K.
Ziesman Revocable Trust, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KPMG LLP,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:16-cv-121 (TAV)
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED MILLER
ENERGY RESOURCES, INC. ("MILLER ENERGY") COMMON STOCK OR SERIES C
OR SERIES D PREFERRED STOCK BETWEEN AUGUST 29, 2011 AND JULY 30,
2015, INCLUSIVE, OR PURCHASED MILLER ENERGY SERIES C OR SERIES D
PREFERRED STOCK PURSUANT TO OR TRACEABLE TO CERTAIN PUBLIC
OFFERINGS (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS")
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, that a
hearing will be held on June 30, 2022 at 1:30 p.m., before the
Honorable Thomas A. Varlan at the Howard A. Baker, Jr. United
States Courthouse, 800 Market Street, Knoxville, TN 37902, for the
purpose of determining (1) whether the proposed settlement of the
claims in the above-captioned action (the "Action") for the
principal amount of $35,000,000 for the Settlement Class (the
"Settlement") should be approved by the Court as fair, just,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal should be entered by the Court dismissing the Action with
prejudice; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable,
and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the
application of Co-Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees
in the amount of 33 1/3% of the Settlement Fund, litigation
expenses not to exceed $600,000, and Notice and Administration
Expenses incurred in connection with the Action should be
approved.
IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SHARES OF COMMON OR SERIES C OR SERIES
D PREFERRED STOCK OF MILLER ENERGY DURING THE PERIOD FROM AUGUST
29, 2011 THROUGH JULY 30, 2015, INCLUSIVE, OR PURCHASED MILLER
ENERGY SERIES C OR SERIES D PREFERRED STOCK PURSUANT TO OR
TRACEABLE TO CERTAIN PUBLIC OFFERINGS, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED
BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.
You may obtain copies of a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement
of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release form by writing to Miller Energy-KPMG Securities
Settlement, PO Box 5024, Portland, OR 97208-5024, visiting
www.MillerEnergy-KPMGsecuritiessettlement.com or calling the claims
administrator at 855-604-1841.
If you are a Settlement Class member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Settlement fund, you must submit a Proof of
Claim and Release postmarked no later than August 18, 2022,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Miller Energy common or
Series C or Series D preferred stock during the Class Period and
you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion postmarked no later than June 16,
2022, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice
referred to above. All Settlement Class members who do not timely
and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the
applicable stipulation of Settlement.
Any objection to the Settlement must be mailed to each of the
following recipients no later than June 16, 2022.
Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee
Howard H. Baker, Jr. United States Courthouse
800 Market Street, Suite 130
Knoxville, TN 37902
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs:
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
Laura H. Posner
88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10005
GORDON BALL PLLC
Gordon Ball
7001 Old Kent Drive
Knoxville, TN 37919
Counsel for Defendant KPMG:
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
Gregory G. Ballard
Ludwig von Rigal
One Vanderbilt Avenue
New York, NY 10017
WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP
Paul S. Davidson
511 Union Street, Suite 2700
Nashville, TN 37219
LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
Gary F. Bendinger
201 East Washington St., Suite 1200
Phoenix, AZ 85004
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OF THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.
If you have questions about the Settlement, you may contact the
claims administrator at the address or phone number listed above.
DATED: May 2, 2022
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
URL// www.MillerEnergy-KPMGsecuritiessettlement.com
MLAND MAINTENANCE: Lechuga Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mland Maintenance
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Rodolfo Lechuga, individually and
on behalf of all persons similarly situated persons working for
Defendants as a Class representative for the members of a
Collective as permitted under the Fair Labor Standards Act v. Mland
Maintenance LLC, DynaCom Management, LLC, Fakhri Bagher, Ali
Setork, Mina Setork, Individually Under FLSA and IWPCA As Employers
And the Employee Classification Act Pursuant to 820 ILCS 185/63,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02415 (N.D. Ill., May 6, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Mland Maintenance specializes in Forestry Mulching and Heavy Bush
hogging.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Craig Ireland, Esq.
THE LAW FIRM OF JOHN C. IRELAND
636 Spruce Street
South Elgin, IL 60177
Phone: (630) 464-9675
Email: atty4employees@aol.com
MOUNTAIN HARDWEAR: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mountain Hardwear,
Inc. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Mountain Hardwear, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-04111 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mountain Hardwear -- http://www.mountainhardwear.com/-- designs
premium outdoor clothing and equipment for mountain sport athletes
and enthusiasts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
MRS. FIELDS FAMOUS: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mrs. Fields Famous
Brands, LLC. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Mrs. Fields Famous
Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02964-FB-VMS (E.D.N.Y., May 19,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Famous Brands International -- https://www.mrsfields.com/about --
is an omnichannel branded food company that owns and manages two
category defining, iconic brands: Mrs. Fields and TCBY.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
MVP EVENT: Ambrose Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MVP Event Production,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Tyrus Ambrose, on behalf of
others similarly situated v. MVP Event Production, LLC, Does 1-100,
inclusive Case No. 34-2022-00319482-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., May 9, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as "Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."
MVP Event Staffing -- https://mvpeventstaffing.com/ -- provides
food and beverage staffing for stadiums, arenas, concerts, music
festivals and convention centers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott S. Nakama, Esq.
LADVA LAW FIRM
530 Jackson St., Fl. 2
San Francisco, CA 94133-5143
Phone: 415-296-8844
MVP EVENT: Johnson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MVP Event
Productions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Michael Johnson, and
on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. MVP Event
Productions, LLC, Legends Hospitality, LLC, Does 1-100, inclusive
Case No. 34-2022-00320210-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., May 18, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as "Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."
MVP Event Staffing -- https://mvpeventstaffing.com/ -- provides
food and beverage staffing for stadiums, arenas, concerts, music
festivals and convention centers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brittany V. Berzin, Esq.
SHIMODA LAW CORP
9401 E Stockton Blvd., Ste. 120
Elk Grove, CA 95624-5050
Phone: 916-525-0716
Fax: 916-760-3733
Email: bberzin@shimodalaw.com
NAVY FEDERAL: Wilkins Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jacqueline Wilkins, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Navy Federal Credit Union, Case
No. UNN L 001148 22 was removed from the Superior Court of Union
County, NJ, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on May 18, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02916 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit sis stated Other Contract.
Navy Federal Credit Union -- https://www.navyfederal.org/ -- is a
global credit union headquartered in Vienna, Virginia, chartered
and regulated under the authority of the National Credit Union
Administration.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Alan E. Schoenfeld, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich St.
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 937-7294
Email: alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com
NEWLINE W P SERVICES: Ciapara Sues Over Unpaid OT, Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
GERARDO CIAPARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEWLINE W P SERVICES INC., A/K/A NEWLINE
DRYWALL SERVICES, and ARTEMIO RAMIREZ, Defendants, Case No.
6:22-cv-00929 (M.D. Fla., May 22, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and retaliatory
discharge in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a drywall installer and
finisher from approximately October 30, 2021 until his termination
on January 26, 2022.
Newline W P Services Inc., also known as Newline Drywall Services,
is a drywall contractor specializing in drywall installations and
drywall repair, with its business office located at 239 S. Volusia
Ave., Orange City, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
NEXTGEN LABORATORIES: Khan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nextgen Laboratories,
Inc. The case is styled as Aleeza Khan, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Palmco Energy PA L.L.C. doing
business as: Indra Energy, Case No. 34-2022-00319499-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 6, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as "Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."
NextGen Laboratories -- https://nextgenlabs.com/ -- provides
premium testing solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary R. Basham, Esq.
BASHAM LAW GROUP
8801 Folsom Blvd., Ste. 280
Sacramento, CA 95826-3250
Phone: 916-282-0841
Fax: 916-266-7478
Email: gary@bashamlawgroup.com
NEXTGEN LEADS: Ploeger Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nextgen Leads, LLC.
The case is styled as April Ploeger, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Nextgen Leads, LLC doing business
as: Firstquote Health, a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:22-cv-01975 (E.D. Pa., May 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Nextgen Leads -- https://nextgenleads.com/ -- generate high-quality
health insurance, and medicare supplement leads.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (732) 695-3282
Email: ari@marcuszelman.com
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: $73MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE NIELSEN HOLDINGS PLC SECURITIES LITIGATION
Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-07143-JMF
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS
ACTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
To: All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Nielsen Holdings plc publicly traded common stock during the period
from February 11, 2016 through July 25, 2018, inclusive, and were
damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class")
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that Lead Plaintiff Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi and additionally named
Plaintiff Monroe County Employees' Retirement System
("Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and all members of the
Settlement Class, and defendants Nielsen Holdings plc ("Nielsen"),
Dwight Mitchell Barns, Kelly Abcarian, and Jamere Jackson
(collectively, with Nielsen, "Defendants" and, together with
Plaintiffs, the "Parties"), have reached a proposed settlement of
the claims in the above-captioned class action (the "Action") and
related claims in the amount of $73,000,000 (the "Settlement").
A hearing will be held before the Honorable Jesse M. Furman, either
in person or remotely in the Court's discretion, on July 20, 2022,
at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1105 of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United
States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York, 10007 (the
"Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court should: (i)
approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated March 15, 2022;
(iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of
the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement Fund") to
Settlement Class Members; and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the
Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another
notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive
a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice and
Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting
the website for the Settlement, www.NielsenSecuritiesSettlement.com
or by contacting the Claims Administrator at:
Nielsen Securities Litigation
c/o Epiq
PO Box 5890
Portland, OR 97228-5890
www.NielsenSecuritiesSettlement.com
855-662-0033
Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel:
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
Christine M. Fox, Esq.
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
settlementquestions@labaton.com
888-219-6877
If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than July 15,
2022. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit
a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless
be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court, whether
favorable or unfavorable.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice so that it is received no later than June 29, 2022. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court, whether
favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be
filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to
counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice, such that they are received no later than June 29, 2022.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE
DATED: April 29, 2022
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NORTHCENTRAL PIZZA: Flygare Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northcentral Pizza,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Nathan Flygare, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Northcentral Pizza, LLC,
Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2022-00319608-CU-WT-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., May 9, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as "Wrongful Termination - Civil
Unlimited."
Northcentral Pizza LLC is located in Sacramento, California and is
part of the Restaurants and Other Eating Places Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Phone: 310-432-0000
Fax: 310-432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
NORTHWEST MICHIGAN: Challender Sues Over Discrimination, Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
MELINDA CHALLENDER, JESSICA GREENE, BRITTANY KRITZ, DARNELL
MUDGETT, MIKAELA SCHAEFER, and ASHLEY TRYLCH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NORTHWEST
MICHIGAN SURGERY CENTER, LLC d/b/a COPPER RIDGE SURGERY CENTER,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00459 (W.D. Mich., May 20, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for religious discrimination
under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and failure to pay
overtime on non-discretionary bonuses in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as non-exempt employees at
any time between November 2021 until their termination on February
3, 2022.
Northwest Michigan Surgery Center, LLC, doing business as Copper
Ridge Surgery Center, is an owner and operator of a surgical
center, with its principal place of business in Traverse City,
Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq.
Grant M. Vlahopoulos, Esq.
Kara F. Krause, Esq.
HURWITZ LAW PLLC
617 Detroit St., Ste. 125
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (844) 487-9489
E-mail: Noah@hurwitzlaw.com
Grant@hurwitzlaw.com
Kara@hurwitzlaw.com
NULIFE MED: Pires Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Customers' Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR PIRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NULIFE MED, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-22-007293 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., May
19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence
and breach of fiduciary duty.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to use reasonable
security procedures and practices to safeguard the personally
identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated customers following a data breach on its database. The
data breach resulted to the unauthorized access of its customers'
sensitive personal information. Moreover, the Defendant failed to
provide timely and adequate notice to the Plaintiff and other Class
members that their private information had been subject to the
unauthorized access of an unknown third party. The Plaintiff and
Class members are at a substantially increased risk of identity
theft and fraud, and have suffered ascertainable losses in the form
of the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket
expenses, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy
or mitigate the effects of the attack, the suit says.
NuLife Med, LLC is a medical equipment company with its principal
place of business in Manchester, New Hampshire. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and –
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
OKTA INC: City of Miami Sues Over 10.74% Drop of Stock Price
------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF MIAMI FIRE FIGHTERS' AND POLICE OFFICERS' RETIREMENT TRUST,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. OKTA, INC., TODD MCKINNON, BRETT TIGHE, MICHAEL
KOUREY, WILLIAM E. LOSCH, and DAVID BRADBURY, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-02990 (N.D. Cal., May 20, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Okta's business, operations,
and compliance policies in order to trade Okta securities at
artificially inflated prices between March 5, 2021 and March 22,
2022. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Okta had inadequate
cybersecurity controls; (ii) as a result, Okta's systems were
vulnerable to data breaches; (iii) Okta ultimately did experience a
data breach caused by a hacking group, which potentially affected
hundreds of Okta customers; (iv) Okta initially did not disclose
and subsequently downplayed the severity of the data breach; (v)
all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material
negative impact on Okta's business, financial condition, and
reputation; and (vi) as a result, the company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times, says
the suit.
When the truth emerged, the company's stock price fell $17.88 per
share, or 10.74 percent, to close at $148.55 per share on March 23,
2022, damaging investors, the suit added.
City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust
is a public pension fund based in Miami, Florida.
Okta, Inc. is a company that offers a variety of cybersecurity
products and services, with principal executive offices located at
100 First Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and –
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and –
Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON
7080 NW 4th Street
Plantation, FL 33317
Telephone: (954) 916-1202
Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com
ORACLE CORP: Appeals Class Cert Ruling in Sunrise Firefighters Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORACLE CORPORATION, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled CITY OF SUNRISE FIREFIGHTERS'
PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ORACLE CORPORATION; SAFRA A. CATZ; MARK
HURD; LAWRENCE J. ELLISON; THOMAS KURIAN; KEN BOND; and STEVE
MIRANDA, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-04844-BLF, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose.
The complaint is a securities fraud class action filed on August
10, 2018 against Defendant Oracle Corporation and its management
alleging violations of Sections 10b-5 and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The Union alleges that Oracle materially
misrepresented its cloud business and its sales tactics related to
its cloud products throughout the class period of May 10, 2017
through June 20, 2018. The Union further alleges that the truth
about Oracle's cloud business -- including a faulty product and
aggressive sales tactics seeking short-term revenue gains -- was
revealed through a series of disclosures between December 14, 2017
and June 19, 2018, causing Oracle's stock price to decline and
damaging its shareholders who bought stock at artificially inflated
prices. The Union brings its claims on behalf of all persons who
purchased or acquired Oracle common stock during the Class Period.
On October 8, 2021, the Union filed a motion to certify the Class
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) which the
Court granted on May 9, 2022, through an Order entered by Judge
Beth Labson Freeman.
The Defendants are now seeking a review of the Class Certification
order.
The appellate case is captioned as City of Sunrise Firefighters'
Pension Fund, et al. v. ORACLE CORPORATION, et al., Case No.
22-80048, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on May 23, 2022.[BN]
Defendants-Petitioners ORACLE CORPORATION; SAFRA A. CATZ; PAULA R.
HURD, as Trustee of the Hurd Family Trust; LAWRENCE J. ELLISON; and
KEN BOND, are represented by:
Dorian Estelle Daley, Esq.
ORACLE CORPORATION
500 Oracle Parkway
Redwood City, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 506-5500
- and -
Jordan Eth, Esq.
Mark Ryan Scott Foster, Esq.
Robert May, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7126
E-mail: jeth@mofo.com
- and -
Joseph R. Palmore, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
2100 L Street NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20037
Telephone: (202) 887-1500
Plaintiffs-Respondents CITY OF SUNRISE FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and
UNION ASSET MANAGEMENT HOLDING AG, Appointed Lead Plaintiff, are
represented by:
Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN, LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 819-3740
- and -
Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN, LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (800) 380-8496
OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in Gardner
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gardner et al., v. Brown,
et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01256 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Stacie F.
Beckerman entered an order certifying two classes of plaintiffs in
the Maney class action:
-- the Damages Class, which includes all adults incarcerated
in Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) facilities who
were incarcerated on or after February 1, 2020, and while
incarcerated, tested positive or were otherwise diagnosed
with COVID-19 (and if they became incarcerated after
February 1, 2020, tested positive or were otherwise
diagnosed with COVID-19 at least 14 days after they
entered ODOC custody); and
-- the Wrongful Death Class.
However, the defendants in the Maney case are seeking to appeal the
Court's class certification opinion. In light of the further delay,
the Court lifts the stay of this action. The Court invites Maney
class counsel to appear in this case with Plaintiff's consent. The
parties shall submit a joint proposed case management schedule by
June 3, 2022, Judge Beckerman says.
This case was stayed pending resolution of a class certification
motion in a related case (Maney, et al. v. Brown et al., Case No.
6:20-cv-00570-SB).
The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Civil Rights.[CC]
OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in King
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as King v. Brown et al., Case
No. 6:21-cv-00164 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Stacie F. Beckerman
entered an order certifying two classes of plaintiffs in the Maney
class action:
-- the Damages Class, which includes all adults incarcerated
in Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) facilities who
were incarcerated on or after February 1, 2020, and while
incarcerated, tested positive or were otherwise diagnosed
with COVID-19 (and if they became incarcerated after
February 1, 2020, tested positive or were otherwise
diagnosed with COVID-19 at least 14 days after they
entered ODOC custody); and
-- the Wrongful Death Class.
However, the defendants in the Maney case are seeking to appeal the
Court's class certification opinion. In light of the further delay,
the Court lifts the stay of this action. The Court invites Maney
class counsel to appear in this case with Plaintiff's consent. The
parties shall submit a joint proposed case management schedule by
June 3, 2022, Judge Beckerman says.
This case was stayed pending resolution of a class certification
motion in a related case (Maney, et al. v. Brown et al., Case No.
6:20-cv-00570-SB).
The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Civil Rights.[CC]
OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in Le
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Le v. Brown et al., Case
No. 6:21-cv-01027 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Stacie F. Beckerman
entered an order certifying two classes of plaintiffs in the Maney
class action:
-- the Damages Class, which includes all adults incarcerated
in Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) facilities who
were incarcerated on or after February 1, 2020, and while
incarcerated, tested positive or were otherwise diagnosed
with COVID-19 (and if they became incarcerated after
February 1, 2020, tested positive or were otherwise
diagnosed with COVID-19 at least 14 days after they
entered ODOC custody); and
-- the Wrongful Death Class.
However, the defendants in the Maney case are seeking to appeal the
Court's class certification opinion. In light of the further delay,
the Court lifts the stay of this action. The Court invites Maney
class counsel to appear in this case with Plaintiff's consent. The
parties shall submit a joint proposed case management schedule by
June 3, 2022, Judge Beckerman says.
This case was stayed pending resolution of a class certification
motion in a related case (Maney, et al. v. Brown et al., Case No.
6:20-cv-00570-SB).
The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Civil Rights.[CC]
OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in Menefee
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Menefee v. Department of
Corrections et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02024 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge
Stacie F. Beckerman entered an order certifying two classes of
plaintiffs in the Maney class action:
-- the Damages Class, which includes all adults incarcerated
in Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) facilities who
were incarcerated on or after February 1, 2020, and while
incarcerated, tested positive or were otherwise diagnosed
with COVID-19 (and if they became incarcerated after
February 1, 2020, tested positive or were otherwise
diagnosed with COVID-19 at least 14 days after they
entered ODOC custody); and
-- the Wrongful Death Class.
However, the defendants in the Maney case are seeking to appeal the
Court's class certification opinion. In light of the further delay,
the Court lifts the stay of this action. The Court invites Maney
class counsel to appear in this case with Plaintiff's consent. The
parties shall submit a joint proposed case management schedule by
June 3, 2022, Judge Beckerman says.
This case was stayed pending resolution of a class certification
motion in a related case (Maney, et al. v. Brown et al., Case No.
6:20-cv-00570-SB).
The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Civil Rights.[CC]
OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in Parkerson
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Parkerson, et al., v.
Brown, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00214 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge
Stacie F. Beckerman entered an order certifying two classes of
plaintiffs in the Maney class action:
-- the Damages Class, which includes all adults incarcerated
in Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) facilities who
were incarcerated on or after February 1, 2020, and while
incarcerated, tested positive or were otherwise diagnosed
with COVID-19 (and if they became incarcerated after
February 1, 2020, tested positive or were otherwise
diagnosed with COVID-19 at least 14 days after they
entered ODOC custody); and
-- the Wrongful Death Class.
However, the defendants in the Maney case are seeking to appeal the
Court's class certification opinion. In light of the further delay,
the Court lifts the stay of this action. The Court invites Maney
class counsel to appear in this case with Plaintiff's consent. The
parties shall submit a joint proposed case management schedule by
June 3, 2022, Judge Beckerman says.
This case was stayed pending resolution of a class certification
motion in a related case (Maney, et al. v. Brown et al., Case No.
6:20-cv-00570-SB).
The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Civil Rights.[CC]
OVASCIENCE INC: $15MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 26
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
OvaScience, Inc. Securities Settlement, as follows:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
FADI DAHHAN, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
OVASCIENCE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
No. 1:17-cv-10511-IT
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF
ALLOCATION; (II) SETTLEMENT
HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION |
EXPENSES
TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED
OVASCIENCE, INC. ("OVASCIENCE") COMMON STOCK BETWEEN DECEMBER 17,
2014 AND SEPTEMBER 28, 2015, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS")1
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court"), that Lead
Plaintiff and Class Representative Freedman Family Investments LLC,
on behalf of itself and the Court-certified Class in the
above-captioned securities class action (the "Action"), has reached
a proposed settlement of the Action with defendants OvaScience,
Michelle Dipp, Jeffrey E. Young, Longwood Fund, L.P., Longwood
Fund, GP, LLC, and Richard Aldrich (collectively, "Defendants") for
$15,000,000 in cash that, if approved, will resolve all claims in
the Action.
A hearing will be held on July 26, 2022, at 2:45 p.m., before the
Honorable Indira Talwani either in person at the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, John Joseph
Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210, or by
telephone or video conference (at the discretion of the Court) to,
among other things: (i) determine whether the proposed Settlement
on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement dated March 4, 2022 (the "Stipulation") is
fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and should be finally
approved by the Court; (ii) determine whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation and the Settlement
Notice should be granted; (iii) determine whether the proposed Plan
of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; (iv)
determine whether Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
Litigation Expenses (including an award to the Lead Plaintiff)
should be approved; and (v) consider any other matters that may
properly be brought before the Court in connection with the
Settlement.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net
Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the full printed
Notice of (I) Proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation; (II)
Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Litigation Expenses (the "Settlement Notice") and the Proof of
Claim and Release Form (the "Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of
these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at
OvaScience Securities Litigation, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box
43312, Providence, RI 02940-3312, 1-866-757-7818,
info@OvaScienceSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of the Settlement
Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website for
the Action, www.OvaScienceSecuritiesLitigation.com.
If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to receive a
payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form
postmarked (if mailed), or online through the Settlement website,
www.OvaScienceSecuritiesLitigation.com, no later than August 22,
2022. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim
Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the
net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound
by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.
If you are a Class Member that did not previously request exclusion
from the Class in response to the Notice of Pendency of Class
Action, and wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must
submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the
requirements set by the Court and the instructions set forth in the
Settlement Notice so that it is postmarked no later than July 5,
2022. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court,
whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be able to share
in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees
and expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead
Counsel and counsel for Defendants such that they are received no
later than July 5, 2022, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Settlement Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, OvaScience,
any other Defendants in the Action, or their counsel regarding this
notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement,
or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be
directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel.
Requests for the Settlement Notice and Claim Form should be made
to:
OvaScience Securities Litigation
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 43312
Providence, RI 02940-3312
1-866-757-7818
info@OvaScienceSecuritiesLitigation.com
www.OvaScienceSecuritiesLitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Settlement Notice and Claim
Form, may be made to Lead Counsel:
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
1-800-449-4900
elleng@rgrdlaw.com
DATED: April 1, 2022
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
District of Massachusetts
Media Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Shareholder Relations
Rick Nelson
(619) 231-1058
1 Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by
definition and others are excluded pursuant to request. The full
definition of the Class including a complete description of who is
excluded from the Class is set forth in the full Settlement Notice
referred to below.
PACIFIC NW: Daniel Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jack Daniel, Individually
and on Behalf 11 of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Pacific NW,
LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02187-MTL (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:
A. Conditionally certifying the case as a collective action;
B. Approving Plaintiff's proposed Notice and Consent to Join
and proposed method of distribution including mailing and
emailing;
C. Approving the form and content of Exhibits 1–5;
D. Directing the Defendant to produce the requested contact
information of each putative class member in an
electronically importable and malleable electronic format,
such as Excel, within seven days after this Court’s Order
is entered;
E. Allowing for an opt-in period of 90 days, to begin when
the Defendant produces the names and contact information
for the collective members, in which collective members
may submit Consents to Join this lawsuit as opt-in
plaintiffs; and
F. Awarding costs and a reasonable attorney's fee and grant
all other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled,
whether specifically prayed for or not.
The Plaintiff worked as a piece-rate Installer for the Defendant.
The Plaintiff brought this suit individually and on behalf of all
other current and former piece-rate employees who worked for
Defendant and who are similarly situated to Plaintiff, to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest,
and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Section 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiff asks this Court to conditionally certify a collective
action consisting of:
"all piece-rate employees employed by Defendant within the
three years prior to the filing of Plaintiff's Original
Complaint and to approve notice to those current and former
employees."
Pacific NW, doing business as Hilton Cabinets, operates as a
building products manufacturing company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 10,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MNzdmT
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael D. Curran, Esq.
MAYNARD CRONIN ERICKSON
& CURRAN, P.L.C.
3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 1800
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: (602) 279-8500
E-mail: mcurran@mmcec.com
PALMCO ENERGY: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Palmco Energy PA
L.L.C. The case is styled as Stewart Abramson, individually and on
behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v.
Palmco Energy PA L.L.C. doing business as: Indra Energy, Case No.
2:22-cv-00696-WSH (W.D. Pa., May 7, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
PALMco -- https://www.palmcoenergy.com/ -- is a family owned and
operated energy supply company offering electricity and natural gas
to homes and businesses in several states across the nation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq.
P.O. Box 244
Bellefonte, PA 16823
Phone: (814) 777-5080
Email: jjackson@bower-law.com
PARKER HANNIFIN: Faces Migliaccio Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOAN MIGLIACCIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00835-DAP (N.D., Ohio, May 20, 2022) is a class action
is brought on behalf of individuals currently or formerly employed
by the Defendants and their dependents whose information was stored
on its computer networks and had their sensitive personal
information ("PII") accessed by unauthorized parties because of a
lapse in network security in or around March of 2022 (the "Data
Breach").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, as a result of the
Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class members will experience
various types of misuse of their PII in the coming years, including
but not limited to unauthorized credit card charges, unauthorized
access to email accounts, and other fraudulent use of their
financial information.
PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION manufactures motion control products,
including fluid power systems, electromechanical controls, and
related components. The Company also produces fluid purification,
fluid flow, process instrumentation, air conditioning,
refrigeration, and electromagnetic shielding and thermal management
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM, LLC
2754 Erie Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
PEPSICO INC: Drobsch PMWA Suit Moved From W.D. Pa. to S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DEVIN DROBSCH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PEPSICO, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00550,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on May 23, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-04216-ER to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay wages,
including proper overtime, for all hours worked in violation of the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law.
Plaintiff Drobsch has worked for PepsiCo as a non-exempt worker
since October 2021.
PepsiCo, Inc. is a food, snack, and beverage corporation, with its
headquarters and principal place of business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
PEPSICO INC: Smith VOWA Suit Moved From E.D. Va. to S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSHUA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PEPSICO, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00184,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on May 23, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-04238-UA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay wages,
including proper overtime, for all hours worked in violation of the
Virginia Overtime Wage Act.
Mr. Smith has worked for PepsiCo as a non-exempt worker since May
2015.
PepsiCo, Inc. is a food, snack, and beverage corporation, with its
headquarters and principal place of business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tara Tighe, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
4250 North Fairfax Drive, Ste. 635
Arlington, VA 22203
Telephone: (571) 357-7598
E-mail: ttighe@forthepeople.com
- and –
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
- and –
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
PEPSICO INC: Tschudy Labor Suit Moved From W.D. Wis. to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JACOB TSCHUDY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PEPSICO, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00210,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on May 23, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-04212-ALC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay wages,
including proper overtime, for all hours worked in violation of
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Overtime Law.
Mr. Tschudy has worked for PepsiCo as a non-exempt worker since
February 2007.
PepsiCo, Inc. is a food, snack, and beverage corporation, with its
headquarters and principal place of business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
PF-AURORA LLC: Rios Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometric Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY RIOS and HECTOR TORRES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. PF-AURORA, LLC and PF WOODRIDGE,
INC., Case No. 2022LA000458 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., May 19, 2022)
seeks to put a stop to Defendants' unlawful collection, use,
disclosure, dissemination, and storage of Plaintiffs' and the
putative Class members' sensitive biometric data.
The Defendants are fitness facilities located in the Chicago
suburbs that operate under the name "Planet Fitness" and share
common ownership.
The Defendants' locations require employees to scan their biometric
identifiers, namely their fingerprints, as an authorization method
to track their time worked.
According to the complaint, once a user has registered and scanned
their fingerprint on Defendants' biometric reader, that information
is enrolled and retained in Defendants' database(s) and cloud-based
system(s). When individuals scan their fingerprint in the
Defendants' biometric time tracking system as a means of
authentication, their biometric information and biometric data is
transmitted to Defendants' database. Thereafter, the data is
broadcast through Defendants' software and web-based data
collection and storage system, alleges the suit.
While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric systems,
there are also serious risks. For example, if a fingerprint
database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, individuals
have no means by which to prevent identity theft and unauthorized
tracking, the suit added.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Fish, Esq.
Mara Baltabols, Esq.
FISH POTTER BOLANOS, P.C.
200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Telephone: (312) 861-1800
Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
mara@fishlawfirm.com
docketing@fishlawfirm.com
- and -
Kevin F. O'Connor, Esq.
O'CONNOR | O'CONNOR, P.C.
110 Schiller St. No. 212
Elmhurst, IL 60126
Telephone: (630) 903-6397
E-mail: kevin@oconnor-oconnor.com
PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRICT: Sargent SeekS to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sherice Sargent, et al.,
v. The School District of Philadelphia, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-01509-CFK (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order certifying a class of parents and students under
Rule 23.
In the alternative, the class may be certified under Rule 23(b)(3).
The class, if certified, will be represented by plaintiffs Sherice
Sargent and Michele Sheridan -- each individually and as next
friend of their minor children. The proposed class consists of:
"all students and parents of students who: (1) applied for
admission to a Philadelphia criteria-based school but were
denied admission because of the school district's racially
discriminatory admissions standards; or (2) will apply for
admission to a criteria-based school in the future but
face an increased risk of being denied admission because of
the school district's decision to abandon merits-based
admission standards and pursue racial balancing in the
student body of its criteria-based schools. The class
includes everyone who has ever fallen within this
definition."
The School District of Philadelphia is the school district that
includes all public schools in Philadelphia. Established in 1818,
it is the 8th largest school district in the nation, by enrollment,
serving over 200,000 students. The school board was created in 1850
to oversee the schools of Philadelphia.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 10,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39T0jtZ
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
MITCHELL LAW PLLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 686-3940
Facsimile: (512) 686-3941
E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law
- and -
Gene P. Hamilton, Esq.
VICE-PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL
AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION
300 Independence Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20003
Telephone: (202) 964-3721
E-mail: gene.hamilton@aflegal.org
- and -
Walter S. Zimolong III, Esq.
ZIMOLONG, LLC
Post Office Box 552
Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085-0552
Telephone: (215) 665-0842
E-mail: wally@zimolonglaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
William Kennedy, Esq.
MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS LLP
1735 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7505
Telephone: (215) 772-7291
Facsimile: (215) 731-3689
E-mail: wkennedy@mmwr.com
R.T.R. FINANCIAL: Okten FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Natalie Okten, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated v. R.T.R. Financial Services, Inc., John Does 1
to 10, Case No. ESX-L-02346-22 was removed from the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Essex County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on May 18, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02903-KSH-MAH to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
RTR Financial Services, Inc. (RTR) -- https://www.rtrfs.com/ -- is
a national leader in account management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
Kim Law Firm LLC
411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 273-7117
Fax: (201) 273-7117
Email: ykim@kimlf.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Cindy D. Salvo, Esq.
THE SALVO LAW FIRM
185 Fairfield Avenue, Suite 3C/3D
West Caldwell, NJ 07006
Phone: (973) 226-2220
Fax: (973) 900-8800
Email: csalvo@salvolawfirm.com
RALPH LAUREN: Faces Miramontes Suit Over Mislabeled Sweaters
------------------------------------------------------------
GLORIA MIRAMONTES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04192 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2022) alleges
violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sells women's burgundy
lightweight v-neck sweaters marketed as made entirely from Pima
cotton under the Polo brand ("Product"). The Defendant failed to
disclose the presence of less Pima cotton than advertised and is
contrary to the Textile Act.
The Defendant makes other representations and omissions with
respect to the Product which are false and misleading. The value of
the Product that Plaintiff purchased was materially less than its
value as represented by Defendant. Had Plaintiff known the truth,
she would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for
it, says the suit.
RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION designs, markets, and distributes men's,
women's and children's apparel, accessories, fragrances, and home
furnishings. The Company's products are sold under a wide range of
brands. Ralph Lauren's operations include wholesale, retail, and
licensing. [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
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and -
Michael L. Aaronson, Esq.
AARONSON LAW FIRM
7362 Remcon Cir
El Paso, TX 79912
Telephone: (915) 241-7590
Email: mikeaaronson@gmail.com
RAPID FINANCIAL: Watkins Seeks to Certify Nevada Card Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER WATKINS, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. RAPID
FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a/ ACCESS FREEDOM CARDS; AXIOM BANK
N.A.; KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK, LLC d/b/a ACCESS SECURE RELEASE;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Watkins v. Rapid Financial
Solutions, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00509-MMD-CSD (D. Nev.),
the Hon. Judge entered an order granting class certification and
motice pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(FRCP) on behalf of the following Class of persons:
-- NEVADA CARD CLASS: All persons who, upon release from
jail, prison, or detention facility, within the state of
Nevada, and who were provided with a prepaid card issued by
the Defendant RAPID FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS or its affiliates,
and/or Defendant AXIOM BANK N.A. of Florida, and/or
Defendant KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK in lieu of cash or a
check for the balance of funds belonging to the inmate at
time of release from custody and who were required to pay
any fee in conjunction with the use or maintenance of the
card.
Rapid Financial offers financial services such as credit card
processing and chargeback and fraud prevention for high risk
companies.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lDKk5O at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
Leah L. Jones, Esq.
Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq.
THIERMAN BUCK, LLP
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, NE 89511
Telephone: (775) 284-1500
Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
josh@thiermanbuck.com
leah@thiermanbuck.com
joshh@thiermanbuck.com
- and -
Christian Gabroy, Esq.
Kaine Messer, Esq.
GABROY LAW OFFICES
The District at Green Valley Ranch
170 South Green Valley Parkway, Suite 280
Henderson, NE 89012
Telephone: (702) 259-7777
Facsimile: (702) 259-7704
E-mail: christian@gabroy.com
kmesser@gabroy.com
- and -
Lance J. Hendron, Esq.
HENDRON LAW GROUP, LLC
625 S. Eighth Street
Las Vegas, NE 89101
Telephone: (702) 758-5858
Facsimile: (702) 387-0034
E-mail: lance@hlg.vegas
RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Grady PAGA Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BARBARA GRADY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RCM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. Civ
SB-2204890, 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 19, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-00842 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act and
California's Unfair Competition Law including failure to pay
overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods, failure to
provide rest breaks, failure to pay for all hours worked, failure
to keep accurate payroll records, failure to furnish accurate wage
statements, failure to pay waiting time penalties, and unfair
competition.
RCM Technologies, Inc. is an engineering services company,
headquartered in New Jersey. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Martha J. Keon, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Three Parkway 1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1321
Telephone: (267) 402-3000
Facsimile: (267) 402-3131
E-mail: mkeon@littler.com
- and –
Shannon R. Boyce, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
Telephone: (310) 553-0308
Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
E-mail: sboyce@littler.com
REALREAL INC: $11MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 28
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. disclosed that the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California has approved the
following announcement of a proposed securities class action
settlement that would benefit purchasers of The RealReal, Inc.
common stock (NASDAQ: REAL):
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE REALREAL, INC. ("TRR") COMMON
STOCK BETWEEN JUNE 27, 2019 AND NOVEMBER 20, 2019, BOTH DATES
INCLUSIVE
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, that a
hearing will be held on July 28, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. before the
Honorable Edward J. Davila, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Courthouse, 280 South 1st
Street, Courtroom 4, San Jose, CA 95113, or by telephonic or
videoconference means as directed by the Court, for the purpose of
determining:
(1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the
above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum
of $11,000,000 should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate;
(2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement
proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(3) whether the application by Lead Counsel for an award
of attorneys' fees of up to 25% of the Settlement Amount
(or $2,750,000), reimbursement of expenses of no more than
$75,000, and a Compensatory Award of reasonable costs and
expenses (including lost wages) directly relating to their
representation of the Settlement Class of no more than
$17,000 total for Plaintiffs should be approved; and
(4) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice as
set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated
November 5, 2021 ("Stipulation").
If you purchased TRR common stock between June 27, 2019 and
November 20, 2019, both dates inclusive ("Settlement Class
Period"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including
the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating
to your ownership interest in TRR common stock. If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action ("Long Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release Form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies by
contacting the Claims Administrator at: The RealReal, Inc.
Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230,
600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, Media, PA 19063, Telephone: (866)
274-4004, Facsimile: (610) 565-7985, info@strategicclaims.net. You
can also download copies of the Long Notice and submit your Proof
of Claim online at www.strategicclaims.net/TRR. If you are a member
of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a properly completed Proof
of Claim electronically or postmarked no later than June 28, 2022
to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and desire to be excluded from
the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion, in
the manner and form explained in the Long Notice, to the Claims
Administrator so that it is received no later than July 7, 2022.
Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by
any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a
claim.
Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, Lead Counsel's
request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses, or the Compensatory Award to Plaintiffs must be in the
manner and form explained in the Long Notice and received no later
than July 7, 2022, by the Clerk of the Court, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California, 280 South 1st Street, Room 2112,
San Jose, California 95113.
If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel:
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Phillip Kim
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
212-686-1060
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.
DATED: MARCH 24, 2022
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RELIANT PRO: Anderson Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Therapists
-----------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RELIANT PRO REHAB LLC, d/b/a
RELIANT REHAB, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00599-HBK (E.D. Cal., May 20, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of California Labor Code and
California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay
overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest
periods, failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, unlawful and/or unfair business
practices, and failure to pay earned wages upon discharge.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a therapist in June 2019
until September 2021
Reliant Pro Rehab LLC, doing business as Reliant Rehab, is a
provider of physical, occupational and speech therapy services to
skilled nursing facilities, with a principal place of business
located at 5800 Granite Parkway, Suite 1000, Plano, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
6916 West Linebaugh Avenue, # 101
Tampa, FL 33625
Telephone: (813) 639-9366
Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
E-mail: Mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
Mail@feldmanlegal.us
- and –
David Ratner, Esq.
Shelley Molineaux, Esq.
RATNER MOLINEAUX LLP
1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 20
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 393-7511
Facsimile: (925) 891-3818
E-mail: david@ratnermolineaux.com
shelley@ratnermolineaux.com
RENOVACARE INC: Faces Solakian Shareholder Suit in NJ Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Renovacare, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2022, that a class action suit
was filed against the company alleging that the defendants made
false and misleading statements.
On July 21, 2021, Michael Solakian, filed a class action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the
company and certain past and current officers and members of the
company's board of directors.
The suit alleges, among other things, that in connection with the
facts and circumstances underlying the allegations, defendants
engaged in fraudulent conduct and made false and misleading
statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading.
The plaintiff seeks a determination that said case is a proper
class action, compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and
other class members, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
lawsuit, including counsel fees and expert fees, and such other
relief as the court may deem proper.
Renovacare, Inc. is a development-stage biotechnology and medical
device company based in Arizona.
RESONANT INC: Misleads Investors to Accept Offer Price, Boudre Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH BOUDRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RESONANT INC., GEORGE B. HOLMES, and MARTIN
S. MCDERMUT, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-03403 (C.D. Cal., May 19,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants authorized the filing of
a materially false and misleading Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding Resonant's value and prospects.
Specifically, the Defendants' materially false and misleading
statements include: (i) the fairness projections; (ii) the
valuation ranges Centerview Partners LLC, Resonant's financial
advisor, derived from the misleadingly low fairness projections;
and (iii) statements mischaracterizing the fairness projections as
"reasonable" when the Defendants knew they did not reasonably
reflect their best estimate regarding the company's value and
prospects. As a result of the Defendants' material misstatements
and omissions, the Plaintiff and similarly situated shareholders
suffered significant damages. Indeed, the false and misleading
statements deceived shareholders regarding the fair value of their
shares and the company's financial prospects and caused them to
accept the unfair offer price by PJ Cosmos Acquisition Company,
Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Murata Electronics North
America, Inc., to purchase all outstanding shares of Resonant, the
suit asserts.
Resonant Inc. is a provider of radio frequency (RF) filter
solutions, with principal executive offices located at 10900
Stonelake Blvd., Austin, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David E. Bower, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
Culver City, CA 90230
Telephone: (213) 446-6652
Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
E-mail: dbower@monteverdelaw.com
- and –
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 971-1341
Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
RETAIL ECOMMERCE: Hernandez Files Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retail Ecommerce
Ventures LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jaimie Hernandez, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Retail
Ecommerce Ventures LLC, Does 1-50, inclusive Case No. 5:22-cv-00834
(C.D. Cal., May 18, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Retail Ecommerce Ventures --
https://www.retailecommerceventures.com/ -- is committed to scaling
ethical companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Gregory Braden, Esq.
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1350 Columbia Street Suite 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 762-1910
Fax: (619) 756-6991
Email: scott@lcllp.com
todd@lcllp.com
RETAIL ECOMMERCE: Panaligan Files Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retail Ecommerce
Ventures LLC, et al. The case is styled as Maria Panaligan, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Retail
Ecommerce Ventures LLC, Does 1-50, inclusive Case No. 2:22-cv-03364
(C.D. Cal., May 18, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Retail Ecommerce Ventures --
https://www.retailecommerceventures.com/ -- is committed to scaling
ethical companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1350 Columbia Street Suite 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 762-1910
Fax: (619) 756-6991
Email: todd@lcllp.com
RIC-DEBRIG INC: Perez-Mosos Sues Over Telephonic Sales Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
PRESTON PEREZ-MOSOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RIC-DEBRIG, INC. D/B/A TUNE RITE AUTO, Case
No. CACE-22-007255 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., May 18, 2022) contends
that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part,
by sending unsolicited telephonic sales to wireless phone users, in
violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
The Defendant is a Florida based automobile-body shop corporation
that offers a wide range of services for European and domestic
vehicles.
To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in telephonic
sales calls to consumers without having secured prior express
written consent as required by the FTSA. The Defendant's telephonic
sales calls have caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm,
including violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages,
annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy, the suit
alleges.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory
damages on behalf of himself and the Class members, as defined
below, and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of
himself individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons as a class action pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.220(b )(2) and (b )(3).
The "Class" that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as:
"All persons in Florida who, (1) were sent a telephonic sales
call regarding Defendant's goods and/or services, (2) using the
same equipment or type of equipment utilized to call
Plaintiff."
The Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the
Class. The Plaintiff does not know the exact number of members in
the Class but believes the Class members number in the several
thousands, if not more, added the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, Florida 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
Christopher Gold, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (786) 289-9471
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
chris@edelsberglaw.com
RISE SERVICES: Anthony Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Deion Anthony, on behalf
of himself and all those similarly situated, v. Rise Services Inc.
dba Rise Inc., an Arizona corporation; and Rise Services Inc., a
Utah corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00268-SPL (D. Ariz.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action
under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA");
2. approving that notice be issued to all current and former
Rise Services employees who worked as Direct Support
Professionals in Arizona from February 18, 2019 to the
date the notice is distributed (the "Direct Support
Professionals");
3. authorizing Anthony to mail, email and text notice to all
Direct Support Professionals;
4. approving the Proposed Notice and Consent to Opt-In to
Collective Action; and
5. requiring that within 14 days of the Court's ruling on
this Motion, Defendants Rise Services Inc. dba Rise Inc.,
an Arizona corporation, and Rise Services Inc., a Utah
corporation, produce the requested contact information of
all Direct Support Professionals.
Anthony alleges that Direct Support Professionals were required to
work significant hours off the clock for which they should have
been paid and should have received overtime and minimum wage
pursuant to the FLSA. Anthony also alleges that Rise Services
unlawfully failed to pay non-discretionary bonuses, hazard pay, and
holiday pay that Direct Support Professionals earned when
determining the hourly rate used to calculate overtime pay.
Through this action, Anthony seeks to recover the overtime
compensation and wages the Direct Support Professionals have earned
but not been paid.
Rise Services operates numerous caregiving facilities throughout
Arizona, hiring Direct Support Professionals like Anthony to
provide caregiving services at numerous locations throughout the
State of Arizona including Chinle, Kingman, Lake Havasu City, Mesa,
Queen Creek, Sierra Vista, Surprise, Tucson, and Yuma.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 6, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MGXhrn at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
YEN PILCH ROBAINA & KRESIN PLC
6017 N. 15th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Telephone: (602) 682-6450
E-mail: TDF@yprklaw.com
- and -
Patricia N. Syverson, Esq .
YEN PILCH ROBAINA & KRESIN PLC
9655 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92123
Telephone: (619) 756-7748
E-mail: PNS@yprklaw.com
RIVIERA MAYA: Cruz Seeks to Conditionally Certify Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINGO TOVAR CRUZ, an
individual, and behalf of all similarly situated v. RIVIERA MAYA,
INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00564-JMB-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"):
a. Conditionally certifying a collective action for unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to 29 U.S.C section 216(b) defined
as:
"Current and former employees of Defendants who were
identified in the US Department of Labor litigation as
having been owed wages for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and/or were not paid the minimum wage and/or
time and a half overtime premium for hours worked over 40
hours per week during their employment.
b. Compelling Defendants to provide Plaintiff with the names,
all known addresses, email addresses and cell phone
numbers of the potential Collective members;
c. Authorizing the notice to the Collective members with a 90
day opt-in period; and
d. Appointing Avanti Law Group, PLLC as interim class
counsel.
The collective action seeks to recover damages for Defendants'
willful violation of the FLSA.
Mr. Cruz was employed by the Defendants at Los Amigos Grill from
April 2016 to March 2020. He was hired as a waiter. Throughout his
employment, he worked on average 60 hours per week. Other similarly
situated employees had similar schedule, the lawsuit says.
Mr. Cruz adds that he was paid on a weekly basis, and when he
received any paystubs, his paystubs would not reflect the correct
amount of tips he had earned and or the correct hours that he had
worked. The pay stubs would at times indicate that he had made more
money then what he actually made during his shift. The Defendants
were investigated by the Department of Labor. When the DOL began
their investigation Plaintiff was to be compensated as a waiter at
the rate of $3.53 per hour worked under 40 hours and $5.73 per hour
worked over 40 hours. The Defendants provided inaccurate
information regarding his employment regarding his hours worked and
pay received to the DOL and this misinformation was used to
calculate the amount that he was allegedly owed.
Riviera Maya is a Mexican restaurant that features Mexican food and
a full bar.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 5, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LCPtW8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq.
AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC
Counsel for Plaintiff
600 28th Street SW
Wyoming, MI 49509
Telephone: (616) 257-6807
E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com
The Attorneys for the Defendants are:
John David Gardiner, Esq.
Christopher J. Zdarsky, Esq.
BODMAN, PLC
99 Monroe Ave. NW, Suite 300
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Telephone: (616) 205-1860
E-mail: jgardiner@bodmanlaw.com
czdarsky@bodmanlaw.com
RPM INT'L: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled for July 21
------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
CHARLES MCDONALD, Derivatively on
Behalf of Nominal Defendant, RPM
INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Plaintiff
vs.
JOHN P. ABIZAID, BRUCE A.
CARBONARI, DAVID A. DABERKO,
JENNIFFER D. DECKARD,
SALVATORE D. FAZZOLARI,
RUSSELL L. GORDON, THOMAS S.
GROSS, EDWARD W. MOORE,
CRAIG S. MORFORD, FREDERICK R.
NANCE, CHARLES A. RATNER,
FRANK C. SULLIVAN, THOMAS C.
SULLIVAN, WILLIAM B. SUMMERS
JR., JERRY SUE THORNTON, and
JOSEPH P. VIVIANO,
Defendants,
and
RPM INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Nominal Defendant.
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
TO: ALL CURRENT RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF COMMON
STOCK OF RPM INTERNATIONAL INC. ("RPM" OR THE "COMPANY") AS OF
MARCH 25, 2022 ("CURRENT RPM STOCKHOLDERS") EXCLUDING DEFENDANTS
AND THEIR SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY
AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
AND DISMISSAL OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION AND CONTAINS
IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS
ACTION IS NOT A "CLASS ACTION" AND NO INDIVIDUAL SHAREHOLDER HAS
THE RIGHT TO BE COMPENSATED AS A RESULT OF THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS
ACTION.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the "Court"),
that a proposed Settlement1 has been reached between and among
Defendants and Plaintiff Charles McDonald in the consolidated
shareholder derivative action styled McDonald v. Abizaid et al,
Docket No. 1:17-cv-00907 (the "Action"). This Notice is not an
expression of any opinion by the Court with respect to the truth of
the allegations in the Action or the merits of the claims or
defenses asserted by or against any party. It is solely to notify
you of the terms of the proposed Settlement, and your rights
related thereto. The terms of the
proposed settlement are set forth in a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated March 25, 2022 (the "Stipulation"). This summary
should be read in conjunction with, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to, the text of the Stipulation, which has
been filed with the Court and is attached hereto.
I. WHY THE COURT HAS ISSUED THIS NOTICE
Your rights may be affected by the Settlement of the Action. The
Parties have agreed upon terms to settle the Action and have signed
the Stipulation setting forth the Settlement terms.
II. SUMMARY OF THE SHAREHOLDER MATTERS SUBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT
This Action arises out of an SEC investigation which led to the
commencement of an enforcement action against RPM International
Inc. ("RPM") and the Company's in-house General Counsel and Chief
Compliance Officer, Defendant Edward W. Moore ("Moore"), on
September 6, 2016 (the "Enforcement Action"). The Enforcement
Action involved, among other things, allegations concerning RPM's
alleged failure to timely disclose and accrue for a U.S. Department
of Justice ("DOJ") investigation, which was prompted by a qui tam
complaint filed on July 15, 2010, involving alleged violations of
the False Claims Act ("FCA") for, among other things, overcharging
the U.S. Government per the government's contractual agreements
with the Company's subsidiary, Tremco Incorporated ("Tremco").
On April 28, 2017, Plaintiff Charles McDonald commenced this Action
by filing a Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint. The
Complaint alleges, in part, that the Individual Defendants, who are
current and former officers and directors of the Company, breached
their fiduciary duties and wasted corporate assets by failing to
properly supervise and monitor the adequacy of RPM's internal
controls and by allowing the Company to engage in an illegal,
unethical, and improper course of conduct. On June 30, 2017, the
Individual Defendants and Nominal Defendant RPM each moved to
dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 23.1 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. In their respective motions to dismiss, Defendants
argued that Plaintiff failed to make a
pre-suit demand on the board of directors of RPM and failed to
plead particularized facts showing that such a demand would be
futile. RPM also moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1) on the grounds that Plaintiff's claims were not ripe for
adjudication or alternatively, requested that the Court stay the
Action pending the outcome of the Enforcement Action.
On July 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Brief in
Opposition to Defendants' motions to dismiss arguing that the
Complaint adequately pleaded demand futility, Plaintiff's claims
were ripe for adjudication and RPM failed to make out a clear case
of hardship or inequity required to justify staying this Action. On
August 21, 2017, the Individual Defendants and Nominal Defendant
RPM each filed a reply in support of their respective motions to
dismiss.
On October 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Supplemental
Authority in Further Opposition to Defendants' motions to dismiss
which informed the Court of the Opinion and Order filed by the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the
"Memorandum Opinion") denying Moore's and RPM's motions to dismiss
the Enforcement Action. On October 9, 2017, the Individual
Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff's notice of supplemental
authority arguing that the Memorandum Opinion was irrelevant to
this Action and had no bearing on the issues raised in the
Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss. RPM also filed a separate
response joining the Individual Defendants' response and further
asserting that the Complaint was still not ripe for
adjudication and that the Action should be stayed.
On November 15, 2017, RPM filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority
informing the Court that Judge Jackson had recently entered a
scheduling order in the Enforcement Action providing for nearly a
year of formal discovery, running from January 2, 2018 through
December 14, 2018, and further urging the Court to stay this
Action. On November 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to
RPM's Notice of Supplemental Authority.
On February 2, 2018, the Court entered an Opinion and Order staying
the Action until the completion of the Enforcement Action and
requiring the Parties to file a joint status report every sixty
days to apprise the Court of the progress of the Enforcement
Action. On December 1, 2020, the Parties submitted a joint status
report stating that on November 25, 2020, the parties informed the
Court in the Enforcement Action that they had reached a settlement
in principle. On February 2, 2021, the Parties submitted a joint
status report informing the Court that on December 22, 2020, the
Court in the Enforcement Action entered a final judgment.
Following the resolution of the Enforcement Action, on January 21,
2021, Plaintiff's counsel submitted a confidential settlement
demand ("Settlement Demand") to Defendants' Counsel, which outlined
a proposed framework for settlement of this Action which included,
inter alia, comprehensive corporate governance reforms tailored to
directly address the alleged wrongdoing in this Action, and
requested confirmatory discovery from Defendants to assess the
adequacy, fairness, and reasonableness of the proposed settlement,
if necessary. On April 1, 2021, counsel for the Defendants
responded to the Settlement Demand setting forth their joint
position, agreeing to certain corporate governance reforms proposed
by Plaintiff and agreeing to discuss confirmatory discovery ("Joint
Response").
Over the next several months, the Parties, through their counsel,
continued to engage in arms' length negotiations concerning
settlement, which included follow up letters containing additional
proposals and counter proposals, teleconferences and email
exchanges. As a result of these negotiations, the Parties reached
an agreement in principle to settle this matter and subsequently
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") memorializing
the terms of the proposed settlement.
On September 10, 2021, the Parties entered into a confidentiality
agreement governing the production of documents and other materials
requested by Plaintiff's Counsel as confirmatory discovery. Shortly
thereafter, Plaintiff's Counsel reviewed approximately 20,000 pages
of confirmatory discovery documents produced by Defendants and
conducted confirmatory interviews of two (2) RPM representatives
for the purpose of evaluating the fairness, adequacy and
reasonableness of the proposed Settlement. After reaching an
agreement on the terms of Settlement, the Parties also reached an
agreement concerning attorneys' fees. Thereafter, the Parties
worked cooperatively to document their agreement as set forth in
the Stipulation and supporting settlement documents.
III. TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
The principal terms, conditions, and other matters that are part of
the Settlement are subject to approval by the Court and a number of
other conditions. This summary should be read in conjunction with,
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, the text of the
Stipulation, which has been filed with the Court and may be viewed
at https://www.rpminc.com/investors/. As set forth therein, RPM,
subject to Board approval, agrees to adopt and/or maintain the
following measures, within thirty (30) days of the Court's entry of
the Order and Final Judgment:
1. The Company will engage outside legal counsel to undertake,
on a periodic basis, an analysis of the Company's corporate
governance policies and identify weaknesses and any areas
of potential improvement;
2. The Company will upgrade RPM's internal compliance audit
programs, as necessary;
3. The Company will perform periodic maturity self-assessments
against DOJ compliance standards;
4. The Company will expand the role of RPM's Associate
General Counsel position by adding additional, formal
compliance duties;
5. In January 2020, the Company amended the Governance
and Nominating Committee's Charter to provide for
the so-called "Rooney Rule," setting forth the
Governance and Nominating Committee's commitment to
include candidates of diverse backgrounds in each
search for new directors;
6. RPM's management will provide reports to the Board's
Audit Committee regarding the status of the Company's
compliance program no less than annually;
7. The Company will institute mandatory employee training
concerning risk assessment and government contracting,
as appropriate;
8. The Company will amend RPM's existing "Hotline Policy"
to incorporate "Reporting Concerns" provisions, as
necessary; and
9. The Company will create a formal "Anti-Corruption"
Policy which shall prohibit employees from offering,
paying or receiving bribes or kickbacks (including
to or from any government official or employee).
The Measures set forth above that are ongoing and/or periodic in
nature will be materially maintained for at least three (3) years
following the issuance of the Order and Final Judgment, subject to
any of the following: (a) a determination by a majority of the
non-management Directors that the Measure is no longer in the best
interest of the Company, including, but not limited to, due to
circumstances making the Measure no longer applicable, feasible, or
available on commercially reasonable terms; or (b) modifications
which the Company reasonably believes are required by applicable
law or regulation.
IV. DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS
The Stipulation provides for the full release of any and all claims
that have been brought or could be brought by Plaintiff, RPM or any
RPM stockholder derivatively on behalf of RPM against the Released
Persons arising out of or relating in any manner to the
allegations, facts, events, transactions, acts, occurrences,
statements, representations, misrepresentations, omissions or any
other matter, thing or cause whatsoever, or any series thereof,
embraced, involved, referred to, set forth or otherwise related to
the complaint filed in the Action, and the entry of judgment
dismissing the Action on the merits with prejudice. If approved by
the Court, the Settlement will permanently bar and enjoin the
institution and prosecution by any RPM shareholders on behalf of
RPM against the Released Persons of any of Plaintiff's Released
Claims (including Unknown Claims) against Defendants and all other
Released Persons, and any claims arising out of, relating to or in
connection with the institution, prosecution, assertion, defense,
settlement, or resolution of the Action.
V. ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPENSES FOR SHAREHOLDER'S COUNSEL AND
SHAREHOLDER'S INCENTIVE AWARDS
After negotiation of the principal terms of the Settlement, the
Parties separately negotiated at arms' length the amount of
attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid in connection with this
Settlement.
As a result of these negotiations, RPM agreed to cause an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid to Plaintiff's Counsel in
the amount of $300,000 (the "Fee Award"), subject to approval of
the Court. To date, Plaintiff's Counsel have not received any
payments for their efforts on behalf of RPM and its stockholders.
Any fee awarded by the Court is designed to compensate Plaintiff's
Counsel for the results achieved on behalf of the Company in
response to the Action, and the costs associated with development,
prosecution, and settlement of the Action. Plaintiff will be
seeking an Incentive Award in an amount up to $2,000 for his
participation in the Action. Such Incentive Award shall be paid
from the Fee Award to Plaintiff's Counsel.
VI. REASONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT
The Parties have determined that it is desirable and beneficial
that the Action, and all of their disputes related thereto, be
fully and finally settled in the manner and upon the terms and
conditions set forth in the Stipulation.
A. Why Did Plaintiff Agree to Settle?
Plaintiff believes that the claims asserted in the Action on behalf
of RPM have merit. Plaintiff, however, recognizes and acknowledges
the expense and length of continued proceedings necessary to
prosecute the Action. Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Counsel have also
taken into account the uncertain outcome and the risk of continued
litigation as well as the difficulties and delays inherent in such
litigation. Based on their evaluation, Plaintiff and Plaintiff's
Counsel have determined that the Settlement set forth in the
Stipulation is in the best interests of RPM and that it confers
substantial benefits upon RPM and its stockholders.
B. Why Did the Defendants Agree to Settle?
Defendants have denied, and continue to deny, each and all of the
allegations made by the Plaintiff in the Action, and furthermore
maintain that they have meritorious defenses thereto. Defendants
also have denied and continue to deny, among other allegations, the
allegations that RPM or any of its stockholders were harmed in any
way as a result of the conduct of the Individual Defendants alleged
in the Action. The Individual Defendants have further asserted and
continue to assert that at all times they acted in good faith and
in a manner they reasonably believed to be and that was in the best
interests of RPM and its stockholders. Nonetheless, Defendants have
concluded that further litigation may be protracted and expensive
and that it is desirable that the Action be fully and finally
settled in the manner and upon the terms and conditions set forth
in the Stipulation. Defendants have, therefore, determined that it
is desirable that the Action be fully and finally settled in the
manner and upon the terms and conditions set forth in the
Stipulation.
VII. SETTLEMENT HEARING
On July 21, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., a hearing (the "Settlement
Hearing") will be held at the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Howard M. Metzenbaum US Courthouse, East
Chambers - Room 328, 201 Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, to
(i) determine whether the proposed Settlement of the Action on the
terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of RPM and its
stockholders; (ii) hear and rule on any objections to the proposed
Settlement, the proposed Order and Final Judgment, the proposed Fee
Award and proposed Incentive Award; (iii) determine whether to
approve the Fee Award and Incentive Award; and (iv) determine
whether the Court should enter the Order and Final Judgment,
attached as Exhibit D to the Stipulation, which would dismiss with
prejudice the Action as to the Parties and release the Released
Claims including as to any claims that have been brought or could
have been brought against the Released Persons. If the Settlement
is approved, you will be subject to and bound by the provisions of
the Stipulation, the releases contained therein, and by all orders,
determinations, and judgments, including the Order and Final
Judgment, concerning the Settlement, whether favorable or
unfavorable to you or RPM. Pending final determination of whether
the Settlement should be approved, no RPM stockholder, either
directly, representatively, derivatively, or in any other capacity,
shall commence or prosecute against any of the Released Persons, an
action or proceeding in any court, administrative agency, or other
tribunal asserting any of Plaintiff's Released Claims.
VIII. RIGHT TO ATTEND FINAL HEARING
You may enter an appearance in the Action, at your own expense,
individually or through counsel of your choice. If you want to
object at the Settlement Hearing, then you must first comply with
the procedures for objecting, which are set forth below. The Court
reserves the right to hold the Settlement Hearing telephonically or
by other virtual means. The Court has the right to change the
hearing dates or times without further notice. Thus, if you are
planning to attend the Final Hearing, you should confirm the date
and time before going to the Court. If you have no objection to the
Settlement, you do not need to appear at the Settlement Hearing or
take any other action.
IX. THE PROCEDURES FOR OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
Any Current RPM Stockholder may object to the Settlement of the
Action, the proposed Order and Final Judgment, the proposed Fee
Award and/or the Incentive Award, and may also (but need not)
appear in person or by his, her, or its attorney at the Settlement
Hearing. To object, such stockholders must submit copies of: (a) a
written statement identifying such person's or entity's name,
address, and telephone number, and, if represented by counsel, the
name, address, and telephone number of counsel; (b) proof of
current ownership of RPM common stock, including the number of
shares of RPM common stock and the date or dates of purchase; (c) a
written statement explaining the person's or entity's objection and
the reasons for such objection; and (d) any documentation in
support of such objection. Any objection should not exceed
twenty-five
(25) pages in length. If the stockholder wishes to appear at the
Settlement Hearing, he, she, or it must also include a statement of
intention to appear at the Settlement Hearing. Such materials must
be filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio and sent by first class mail to the
following addresses and postmarked at least twenty-one (21)
calendar days before the Settlement Hearing:
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
Nina M. Varindani
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CALFEE, HALTER & GRISWOLD LLP
Mitchell G. Blair
Fritz E. Berckmueller
The Calfee Building
1405 East Sixth Street
Cleveland, OH 44114-1607
Attorneys for the Individual Defendants
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
Daniel R. Warren
Carole S. Rendon
Douglas L. Shively
127 Public Square, Suite 2000
Cleveland, OH 44114-1214
Attorneys for Nominal Defendant RPM International Inc.
Any person or entity who fails to object in the manner described
above shall be: (i) deemed to have waived any objection to the
Settlement, Order and Final Judgment, Fee Award, and Incentive
Award; (ii) barred from raising such objection in this Action or
any other action or proceeding; and (iii) bound by the Order and
Final Judgment and the releases of claims therein. Current RPM
Stockholders that have no objection to the Settlement, Order and
Final Judgment, Fee Award, or Incentive Award do not need to appear
at the Settlement Hearing or take any other action.
X. HOW TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
This Notice summarizes the Stipulation. It is not a complete
statement of the events of the Action or the terms of the
Settlement contained in the Stipulation. The Stipulation may be
viewed on the Investor Relations portion of the RPM's website at
https://www.rpminc.com/investors/. Inquiries about the Action or
the Settlement may be made to Plaintiff's Counsel: Nina M.
Varindani, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor, New
York, New York, (212) 983-9330; Richard S. Wayne, Strauss Troy Co.,
LPA, 150 E. Fourth Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018, (513)
621-2120.
BY ORDER OF THIS COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
DO NOT CONTACT THE CLERK OF THE COURT
REGARDING THIS NOTICE
RUBY CORP: Crouch Files Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ruby Corp. The case
is styled as Harry Crouch, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Ruby Corp. doing business as: Ashley Madison;
Ruby Life, Inc. doing business as: ashleymadison.com; Case No.
3:22-cv-00711-MMA-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 18, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
Ruby -- https://www.rubylife.com/ -- is an industry leader in
innovative, open-minded dating services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alfred Gerard Rava, Esq.
THE RAVA LAW FIRM
3667 Voltaire Street
San Diego, CA 92106
Phone: (619) 238-1993
Fax: (619) 374-7288
Email: alrava@cox.net
S & C PIZZA: Faces Lobos Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN LOBOS and NOEL ARGUETA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. S & C PIZZA, CORP. d/b/a
SAL'S PIZZERIA OF SMITHTOWN and SALVATORE AGOLA, Defendants, Case
No. 2:22-cv-02958 (E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiffs Lobos and Argueta worked for the Defendants as cooks at
Sal's Pizzeria from December 2019 until March 25, 2022 and from
October 2019 until March 2022, respectively.
S & C Pizza, Corp., doing business as Sal's Pizzeria of Smithtown,
is a restaurant owner and operator located at 60 Terry Road,
Smithtown, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
SACRAMENTO, CA: Garza, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ,
ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY
PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, v. CITY OF
SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to
225, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order certifying the case as a class action,
and directing the issuance and delivery of notice to class
members.
Sacramento, capital of the U.S. state of California.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 9, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38hrSNq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark E. Merin, Esq.
Paul H. Masuhara, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN
1010 F Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 443-6911
Facsimile: (916) 447-8336
E-Mail: mark@markmerin.com
paul@markmerin.com
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Extension to File Opposition Brief Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRYL DUNSMORE, ERNEST
ARCHULETA, ANTHONY EDWARDS, REANNA LEVY, JOSUE LOPEZ, CHRISTOPHER
NELSON, CHRISTOPHER NORWOOD, and LAURA ZOERNER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE
PARTNERS, INC., TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER, LIBERTY HEALTHCARE, INC.,
MID-AMERICA HEALTH, INC., LOGAN HAAK, M.D., INC., SAN DIEGO COUNTY
PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Case No.
3:20-cv-00406-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal.), the Defendant County of San
Diego asks the Court to enter an order granting a 30-day extension
of time for the Defendant County (and any other Defendants) to file
their Opposition Brief and supporting exhibits, from May 16, 2022,
to June 15, 2022.
If the Court is not amenable to a 30-day extension, in the
alternative Defendant seeks as much additional time as the Court is
willing to provide (whether that is 2 or 3 weeks or some other
amount of time), the Defendant says.
San Diego County, officially the County of San Diego, is a county
in the southwestern corner of the state of California, in the
United States. As of the 2020 census, the population was 3,298,634,
making it California's second-most populous county and the
fifth-most populous in the United States.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 4, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39IHj1d at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Susan E. Coleman, Esq.
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2953
Telephone: (213) 236-0600
Facsimile: (213) 236-2700
E-mail: scoleman@bwslaw.com
SEAGLE PIZZA: Delivery Drivers Get Class Status in Thompson
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFFER THOMPSON v.
SEAGLE PIZZA, INC. et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00016-DJH-RSE (W.D.
Ky.), the Hon. Judge David J. Hale entered an order as follows:
1. Thompson's unopposed motion for final approval is granted.
The parties' Settlement and Release Agreement and
Supplemental Settlement Agreement and Release are finally
approved and shall be consummated in accordance with the
terms and provisions thereof.
2. The attorney fees, costs, and expenses to be paid to class
counsel as set forth in the Settlement and Release
Agreement are approved.
3. The service payment to be paid to Thompson as set forth in
the Settlement and Release Agreement is approved.
4. The settlement administration costs to be paid to the
third-party settlement administrator as set forth in the
Settlement and Release Agreement are approved.
5. The following class is certified pursuant to section
216(b) of the FLSA for settlement purposes:
"All delivery drivers employed by Defendants or the
Additional Entities from May 29, 2017, to June 1, 2021."
6. The following classes are certified pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for settlement purposes:
"All delivery drivers who worked for Defendants or the
Additional Entities during the Release Period, with the
Release Period defined as the five-year period preceding
the Court’s Order approving the Parties' Joint Motion to
Stay Pending Mediation (May 29, 2015) for Participating
Class Members who worked for Defendants or an Additional
Entity in Kentucky, and the three-year period preceding
the Court's Order approving the Parties' Joint Motion to
Stay Pending Mediation (May 29, 2017) for Participating
Class Members who worked for an Additional Entity, through
the date the Court granted Preliminary Approval (June 1,
2021)."
7. Thompson's previous unopposed motion for final approval is
denied as moot.
8. The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal in the record of
this case the redacted versions of the parties' Settlement
and Release Agreement; Supplemental Settlement Agreement
and Release; and Notice of Class and Collective Action
Settlement and Final Fairness Hearing.
9. This action is dismissed with prejudice in accordance with
the terms of the and Release Agreement and Supplemental
Settlement Agreement and Release and is stricken from the
Court's active docket.
Seagle Pizza is located in Bowling Green, Kentucky and is part of
the restaurants and other eating places industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38IO7Mj at no extra charge.[CC]
SEATTLE, WA: Hunters Capital Loses Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUNTERS CAPITAL, LLC;
HUNTERS PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC; GREENUS BUILDING, INC.; SRJ
ENTERPRISES d/b/a CAR TENDER; THE RICHMARK COMPANY d/b/a RICHMARK
LABEL; ONYX HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; WADE BILLER; MADRONA REAL
ESTATE SERVICES LLC; MADRONA REAL ESTATE INVESTORS IV LLC; MADRONA
REAL ESTATE INVESTORS VI LLC; 12TH AND PIKE ASSOCIATES LLC; REDSIDE
PARTNERS LLC; OLIVE ST APARTMENTS LLC; BERGMAN'S LOCK AND KEY
SERVICES LLC; MATTHEW PLOSZAJ; SWAY AND CAKE LLC; and SHUFFLE LLC
d/b/a CURE COCKTAIL; v. CITY OF SEATTLE, Case No. 2:20-cv-00983-TSZ
(W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Zilly entered an order
denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have not shown by a preponderance
of the evidence that the particular issues they desire to certify
satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule
23(a)(2) and (3), or the predominance and superiority requirements
of Rule 23(b)(3)."
The Plaintiffs are property owners, businesses, and residents in
Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood who claim that they were harmed
during the Capitol Hill Organized Protest or Capitol Hill Occupying
Protest.
The Plaintiffs allege that the City of Seattle "abruptly deserted"
the Capitol Hill neighborhood on June 8, 2020, and left it
unattended until July 1, 2020. On June 8, 2020, the City evacuated
the East Precinct of the Seattle Police Department ("SPD") amid
ongoing civil rights protests, leaving behind barriers that had
been used to separate police from protesters.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MG8ngv at no extra charge.[CC]
SERVICE KING: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert Briefing OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA MONIZ, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SERVICE KING, INC. a California Corporation; SERVICE KING PAINT &
BODY, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through
100, Case No. 5:18-cv-07372-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward
J. Davila entered an order granting stipulation to continue class
certification briefing deadlines as follows:
Event Current New Proposed
Deadline Date
-- Opposition to Renewed May 16, 2022 May 31, 2022
Class Certification:
-- Reply to Opposition May 23, 2022 June 21, 2022
to Renewed Class
Certification:
-- Hearing on Renewed Oct. 13, 2022 Oct. 13, 2022
Motion for Class
Certification
A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wORxqh at no extra charge.[CC]
SIMMONS BANK: Initial Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY L. WALKINGSTICK,
WHITNYE A. FORT, on behalf of the themselves and all other
similarly situated, v. SIMMONS BANK, Case No. 6:19-cv-03184-RK
(W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
their unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement.
The Plaintiffs, Danny L. Walkingstick and Whitnye A. Fort, under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1), hereby move the
Court for entry of the tendered Preliminary Approval Order, which:
1. Preliminarily approves the class action Settlement
Agreement and Release;
2. Certifies the Settlement Class, appoints Plaintiffs as
Class Representatives, and appoints Plaintiffs' Counsel as
Class Counsel;
3. Approves the proposed notice plan and deadlines for Class
Members to object to or opt-out of the proposed
Settlement; and
4. Schedules a final approval hearing for a date
approximately 120 days after preliminary approval.
Simmons Bank is a bank with operations in Arkansas, Kansas,
Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. It is the primary
subsidiary of Simmons First National Corporation, a bank holding
company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 6, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NA8fzb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Vess A. Miller, Esq.
Lisa M. La Fornara, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
vmiller@cohenandmalad.com
llafornara@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq.
601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64106
Telephone: (816) 984-8100
E-mail: Ashlea@PaulLLP.com
- and -
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
JOHNSON FIRM
610 President Clinton Avenue, Ste. 300
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 372-1300
E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Anthony Orlandi, Esq.
Martin F. Schubert, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH
& JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
aorlandi@bsjfirm.com
martys@bsjfirm.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielgold.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason C. Smith, Esq.
Rodney H. Nichols, Esq
SPENCER FANE LLP
2144 E. Republic Road, Suite B300
Springfield, MO 65804
E-mail: jcsmith@spencerfane.com
rnichols@spencerfane.com
- and -
Debra Bogo-Ernst, Esq.
Lucy L. Holifield, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
E-mail: dernst@mayerbrown.com
lholifield@mayerbrown.com
SONESTA INTERNATIONAL: Dominguez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BERTHA DOMINGUEZ, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. SONESTA INTERNATIONAL HOTELS
CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
22-CIV-01475, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on May 23, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-03027 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay all
wages and minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure
to provide rest periods, failure to timely furnish accurate
itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties, failure to timely
pay wages during employment, failure to provide sick pay, and
unfair business practices.
Sonesta International Hotels Corporation is an American hotel
company headquartered in Newton, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Shannon B. Nakabayashi, Esq.
Benjamin J. Schnayerson, Esq.
Kevin Ha, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
Telephone: (415) 394-9400
Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
E-mail: Shannon.Nakabayashi@jacksonlewis.com
Benjamin.Schnayerson@jacksonlewis.com
Kevin.Ha@jacksonlewis.com
SRG OPERATING: Faces Belonio Suit Over Illegal Background Check
---------------------------------------------------------------
ZENAIDA BELONIO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SRG OPERATING, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-2-599769
(Cal. Sup. Ct., May 23, 2022) alleges the Defendants of failure to
make proper disclosure in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.
The Plaintiff asserts that when she applied for employment with the
Defendant, the Defendants provided disclosure and authorization
form to perform a criminal background investigation. However, the
disclosures provided by the Defendants contained extraneous and
superfluous language that does not consist solely of the disclosure
as required by the FCRA and/or is not clear and conspicuous.
Accordingly, Although the disclosure and the authorization may be
combined in a single document, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
has warned that the form should not include any extraneous
information nor be part of another document, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings complaint as a class action demanding for
judgment against the Defendant for statutory penalties, punitive
damages, injunctive relief, litigation costs, interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and
proper or as authorized by statute.
SRG Operating, Inc. operates a real estate business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
David Keledjian, Esq.
David Arakelyan, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Tel: (310) 888-7771
Fax: (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
david@setarehlaw.com
arakelyan@setarehlaw.com
STATESIDE TAX: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Costa Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Costa, v. Stateside
Tax Group, LLC and Greenlaw Consulting Group Inc., Case No.
3:21-cv-03906-JFA (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
entered a scheduling order:
-- Any motions to join other parties August 29, 2022
and to amend the pleadings shall
be filed by:
-- The parties shall file and serve
the witness disclosures required
by Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and (C) by
the following dates:
Plaintiff: October 28, 2022
Defendant: December 29, 2022
-- All discovery shall be completed January 29, 2023
by:
-- The parties shall file motions February 13, 2023
related to class certification
by:
-- The parties shall file dispositive February 20, 2023
motions by:
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sP0KvY at no extra charge.[CC]
STERLING BANCORP: Class Settlement Hearing Scheduled for Sept. 29
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RAYMOND CAHNMAN, derivatively on
behalf of STERLING BANCORP, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARRY ALLEN, PEGGY DAITCH, SETH
MELTZER, SANDRA J. SELIGMAN,
PETER SINATRA, RACHEL TRONSTEIN
STEWART, and LYLE WOLBERG,
Defendants,
and
STERLING BANCORP, INC.,
Nominal Defendant.
Case No. 2:22-cv-10124
NOTICE OF PROPOSED
DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT
TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF
STERLING BANCORP, INC. ("STERLING" OR THE "COMPANY") AS OF JANUARY
20, 2022 (THE "RECORD DATE") AND ALL WHO WILL BE CURRENT OWNERS OF
STERLING COMMON STOCK AS OF SEPTEMBER 29, 2022
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS NOTICE
RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF THE
ABOVE-CAPTIONED CONSOLIDATED DERIVATIVE ACTION (THE "ACTION") AND
CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS. YOUR RIGHTS
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THESE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. IF THE COURT APPROVES
THE SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE
APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FROM PURSUING THE RELEASED
CLAIMS.
IF YOU HOLD STERLING COMMON STOCK FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER,
PLEASE PROMPTLY TRANSMIT THIS DOCUMENT TO SUCH BENEFICIAL OWNER.
Notice is hereby provided to you of the proposed settlement (the
"Settlement") of this stockholder derivative litigation. This
Notice is provided by Order of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan (the "Court"). It is not an
expression of any opinion by the Court with respect to the truth of
the allegations in the litigation or merits of the claims or
defenses asserted by or against any party. It is solely to notify
you of the terms of the proposed Settlement, and your rights
related thereto. The terms of the proposed Settlement are set forth
in a written Stipulation of Settlement dated January 20, 2022
("Stipulation").
I. WHY THE COMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS NOTICE
Your rights may be affected by the settlement of the action styled
Cahnman v. Allen, et al., Case No: 2:22-cv-10124 (the "Action").
Plaintiff Raymond Cahnman ("Plaintiff") (on behalf of himself and
derivatively on behalf of Sterling); individual defendants Barry
Allen, Peggy Daitch, Seth Meltzer, Sandra J. Seligman, Peter
Sinatra, Rachel Tronstein Stewart, and Lyle Wolberg (the
"Individual Defendants"); and Nominal Defendant Sterling
("Sterling" or "Company," and, together with Plaintiff and
Individual Defendants, the "Settling Parties" or "Parties") have
agreed upon terms to settle the above-referenced litigation and
have signed the Stipulation setting forth those settlement terms.
On September 29, 2022, at 2:30 p.m. EST, the Court will hold a
hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") in the Action. The purpose of
the Settlement Hearing is to determine: (i) whether the Settlement
is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be finally approved;
(ii) whether the Fee and Expense Award to Plaintiff's Counsel is
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (iii) whether a final judgment
should be entered and the Action dismissed with prejudice pursuant
to the Stipulation; and (iv) such other matters as may be necessary
and proper under the circumstances.
II. STERLING DERIVATIVE LITIGATION
On February 26, 2020, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System
filed in this Court a securities class action lawsuit against
Sterling and certain of its officers, captioned Oklahoma Police
Pension and Retirement System v. Sterling Bancorp, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 5:20-cv-10490-JEL-EAS (the "Securities Class Action").
On July 28, 2020, Plaintiff served the Cahnman Demand Letter on the
Board of Directors of Sterling (the "Board") demanding that the
Board pursue litigation against various individuals based on the
same or substantially similar facts as alleged in the Securities
Class Action.
On September 22, 2020, in accordance with Michigan law, MCL Sec.
450.1495(2)(b), the Board appointed a committee (the "Demand Review
Committee"), comprised of three independent directors who joined
the Board after the events at issue began to be disclosed, to
investigate the matters raised in the Cahnman Demand Letter and
determine whether proceeding with the corporate causes of action
described in the letter was in the best interests of the Company.
On October 5, 2020, the Demand Review Committee, through its
counsel, acknowledged receipt of the Demand and sought Plaintiff's
agreement to extend the 90-day response period under MCL Sec.
450.1493a to allow the Demand Review Committee time to complete its
work.
The Demand Review Committee and its outside, independent counsel,
DLA Piper LLP (US), reviewed investigative work concerning the
Advantage Loan Program and the misconduct that is the focus of the
Cahnman Demand Letter by: (i) the boards of directors of the
Company and the Bank; (ii) a committee of the Bank's board formed
in January 2020 that is known as the Independent Director Review
Committee (the "IDRC"); (iii) the law firm Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer LLP; and (iv) others ultimately reporting to the boards of
directors. All of the members of the Demand Review Committee also
are members of the IDRC.
In early 2021, criminal information statements and plea agreements
were filed, including in this Court, against certain former
Sterling loan officers.
On February 1, 2021, prior to adjudication of a motion to dismiss,
the Company announced that it had reached an agreement in principle
to settle the Securities Class Action.
On February 11, 2021, Plaintiff sent the Board a settlement demand
letter exploring a potential settlement of the Demand. On April 5,
2021, the Demand Review Committee contacted counsel for Plaintiff
to initiate negotiations of a potential settlement. The Parties
conducted negotiations over the course of several months and, on
October 19, 2021, executed a term sheet documenting the principal
terms of the Parties' agreement to settle the claims described in
the Demand (the "Term Sheet"). Between October 20 and November 18,
2021, Plaintiff's Counsel conducted confirmatory discovery to
confirm the fairness, adequacy and reasonableness of the settlement
terms. Among other things, Plaintiff's Counsel reviewed Sterling's
public filings, as well as several hundred pages of non-public
documents produced by Sterling, received a presentation from
counsel for the Demand Review Committee of the actions taken by the
Demand Review Committee to investigate and evaluate the allegations
and claims raised in the Cahnman Demand Letter, and on November 18,
2021, conducted an interview of Sterling's Chairman, Chief
Executive Officer ("CEO") and President Thomas M. O'Brien.
On January 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a verified shareholder
derivative complaint on behalf of the Company against the
Individual Defendantsin the Court, asserting claims for breach of
fiduciary duties.
III. TERMS OF THE PROPOSED DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT
The principal terms, conditions, and other matters that are part of
the Settlement, which is subject to approval by the Court, are
summarized below. This summary should be read in conjunction with,
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, the text of the
Stipulation, which, together with the Exhibits annexed thereto, has
been filed with the Court and is available at a link on Sterling's
website at the Investor Relations page at
https://investors.sterlingbank.com/.
In connection with the Settlement, Sterling, through its Board,
agrees, consistent with its duties and weighing the associated
costs and burdens, including the impact, if any, on ongoing
government investigations, to continue to pursue recoupment of
compensation paid to a certain former employee and continues to
evaluate pursuing similar claims with respect to others to the
extent consistent with actions taken by the DOJ.
The Sterling Board and the IDRC continue to evaluate possible
claims by the Company or the Bank against various individuals or
the refusal to advance defense costs to any such individuals
relating to the matters raised in the Cahnman Demand Letter, taking
into account relevant factors, including the potential net recovery
from such litigation, any need to coordinate timing due to ongoing
government investigations, the expense and potential disruption
that would be associated with such actions, and other factors.
Additionally, Sterling's Board of Directors shall adopt and
maintain the corporate governance measures described below.
Sterling acknowledges and agrees that the corporate governance
policies, the recoupment of compensation, and the refusal to
advance costs confer substantial benefits upon Sterling and its
stockholders. Sterling also acknowledges that the commencement,
prosecution, and settlement of the Action contributed to the
Board's decision to adopt, implement, and maintain corporate
governance policies.
STEWARD HEALTH: Court Amends Class Certification Order
------------------------------------------------------
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. Graven entered an order granting
joint motion for entry of amended class certification docket
control order as follows:
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file August 12, 2022
Motion for Class Certification
and designate expert witnesses
on which Plaintiffs rely in
support of class certification:
-- Deadline to complete depositions September 14, 2022
of Plaintiffs' class
certification experts:
-- Deadline for Defendants to file October 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 November 14, 2022
of Defendants' class certification
experts:
-- Deadline for Plaintiff to file November 30, 2022
reply in support of Motion
for Class Certification:
-- Deadline for Defendants to file January 13, 2023
surreply in opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Hearing on Plaintiffs' January 24, 2023
Motion for Class
Certification:
Steward Health is a physician-owned private for-profit health care
network in the United States and attends to 2.2 million people
during more than twelve million physician and hospital visits
annually.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38exUhO at no extra charge.[CC]
STRYKER CORPORATION: Underpays CSRs, Floyd Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
ANGELITA FLOYD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STRYKER CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-01131-C (N.D. Tex., May 23, 2022) seeks for damages and
other legal and equitable relief from the Defendant as a result of
its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a Customer Service
Representative (CSR) beginning in or around September 2019 to
provide customer service to its customers.
The Plaintiff asserts that while employed by the Defendant, she and
other similarly situated CSRs were required by the Defendant to
work off-the-clock in order to timely complete their assignments.
However, the Defendant allegedly failed to compensate them for the
time they spent off-the-clock work. As a result, despite working
more than 40 hours per workweek, the Defendant willfully failed to
pay them proper overtime compensation at the statutorily required
rate of one and one-half times their hourly rate for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the Plaintiff.
Stryker Corporation is a medical technology company that provides
medical equipment to medical providers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander M. White, Esq.
VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7180
E-mail: awhite@vkvlawyers.com
TEAM INDUSTRIAL: Settlement Reached in California Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Team, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 11, 2022, that in March 2022, parties in a class
action labor case filed in August 26, 2020 against Team Industrial
Services, Inc. in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles,
California, have entered into a formal settlement agreement and
agreed to remand the case to the Los Angeles Superior Court for
approval of the settlement.
In August 26, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Team Industrial Services, Inc. in the Superior Court for
the County of Los Angeles, California. Plaintiff Alex Esqueda
asserts claims for alleged wage and hour violations under the
California Labor Code (for alleged unpaid wages, failure to provide
meal and rest breaks, and derivative related claims). While the
parties mediated on March 18, 2021, the cases did not settle.
In April 16, 2021, Team Industrial Services, Inc. moved the Esqueda
action to the United States District Court for the Central District
of California. Plaintiff's motion for remand was denied, and these
matters remain in federal court.
In November 2021, the parties agreed in principle to settle all
claims in this litigation and all parties entered into a formal
settlement agreement in March 2022. As part of the settlement
agreement, the parties have agreed to remand the case to the Los
Angeles Superior Court for approval of the settlement. All class
action settlements of this nature are subject to approval of the
court.
Team Inc. is a global provider of integrated, digitally-enabled
asset performance assurance and optimization solutions.
TESORO REFINING: McGhee Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK L. MCGHEE, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. TESORO REFINING &
MARKETING COMPANY LLC; ANDEAVOR; ANDEAVOR LOGISTICS LP; and DOES 1
to 100, inclusive, Case No. 4:18-cv-05999-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying case as a
class action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)
and 23(b)(3).
The Plaintiff classes consist of the following:
1. Minimum Wage Class:
a. Minimum Wage Rounding Class: "All current and former
unionized hourly non-exempt employees employed by
Defendant in California at its Carson refinery whose
scheduled hours were rounded from August 17, 2014,
through June 4, 2019."
b. Minimum Wage Turnover Time Class: "All current and
former unionized hourly non-exempt employees employed
by the Defendant at its Carson, Wilmington, and
Martinez refineries and Martinez chemical plant from
August 17, 2014, to January 1, 2018, who worked at
least one rotating 12-hour shift."
2. Discouraged Meal Break Class: "All current and former
unionized hourly non-exempt employees employed by
Defendant in California at its Carson Refinery from August
17, 2014, through April 20, 2020, who worked at least one
rotating 12-hour shift."
3. On-Duty Rest Class: "All current and former unionized
hourly non-exempt lab technicians employed by Defendant at
its Carson, Wilmington, and Martinez refineries and
Martinez chemical plant from August 17, 2014, through
April 20, 2020, who worked at least one shift over 3.5
hours."
4. Waiting Time Class: "All former unionized hourly non-
exempt employees employed by Defendant in California at
Defendant at its Carson, Wilmington, and Martinez
refineries and Martinez chemical plant from August 17,
2015, through April 20, 2020, who, by virtue of their
membership in any other class or subclass herein, were not
paid all wages owed to them at the time of the separation
of their employment."
In addition, the Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint him as
Class Representative. The Plaintiff also requests that the Court
appoint his counsel, Joseph Lavi, Jordan Bello, and Vincent C.
Granberry of Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP as Class Counsel.
Tesoro refines and markets petroleum products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify classes dated May 9,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NriQfq
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
jbello@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
TRUE OFFER: Beal Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against True Offer LLC. The
case is styled as Jordan Beal, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. True Offer LLC, Does 1-10, Case No.
3:22-cv-00710-JLS-WVG (S.D. Cal., May 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
True Offer LLC -- https://www.trueofferllc.com/ -- buys houses in
and around Indianapolis.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd Michael Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
TTX COMPANY: Leon Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOEY LEON, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. TTX COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2206076, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on May 23, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-00860 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to pay wages due upon separation, failure to indemnify
business expenses, and unfair business practices.
TTX Company is a provider of railcars and related freight car
management services to the North American rail industry,
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq.
Cameron O. Flynn, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (858) 652-3100
Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com
cameron.flynn@ogletree.com
TUNNEL BARREL: Licona Seeks FLSA Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELEUTERIO LICONA, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. TUNNEL BARREL &
DRUM COMPANY, and ANTHONY PAUL URCIOLI, individually, Case No.
2:22-cv-00946-JMV-LDW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting his motion for conditional certification
and facilitation of notice:
1. Conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) claim as a representative collective action
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);
2. Court-facilitated notice of this FLSA action to covered
employees; including a consent form (or opt-in form) as
authorized by the FLSA;
3. Approval of the proposed FLSA notice of this action and
the consent form;
4. Production of names, last known mailing address, alternate
address, telephone numbers and dates of employment of all
covered employees; and
5. Posting of the Notice, along with consent forms, in
conspicuous locations at Tunnel Barrel.
Tunnel operates as a supplier of drums products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 10,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yRnaki
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 323-6980
Facsimile: (212) 233-9238
TWITTER INC: Morgan Consumer Suit Removed to E.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GLEN MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TWITTER, INC., Case No. 22-2-01372-32,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington,
County of Spokane, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington on May 19, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-00122 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful procurement
of the Plaintiff's and Class members' telephone records.
Twitter, Inc. is an American communications company based in San
Francisco, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Aravind Swaminathan, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5600
Seattle, WA 98104-7097
Telephone: (206) 839-4300
Facsimile: (206) 839-4301
E-mail: aswaminathan@orrick.com
UNION PACIFIC: Smithson Class Suit Junked
-----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JIMMY J. SMITHSON v UNION
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Case No. 5:21-cv-01225-XR (W.D. Tex.),
the Hon. Judge Xavier Rodriguez entered an order granting the
Defendant Union Pacific's motion to dismiss.
The Plaintiff's disparate-treatment claim remains pending, says
Judge Rodriguez.
Mr. Smithson brings an employment-discrimination action against
Union Pacific, alleging disability discrimination based on
disparate treatment, disparate impact, and failure to accommodate
under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Specifically, Smithson alleges that Union Pacific discriminated
against him and failed to accommodate his color-vision deficiency
when it removed him from service as a conductor on March 7, 2018.
Smithson was removed from service after he failed the Ishihara
color-vision test during his required Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) conductor certification, which required him to
undergo Union Pacific's fitness-for-duty evaluation.
After his March 2018 removal from service, Smithson eventually
returned to work in Union Pacific's mechanical department in
January 2019. However, on July 10, 2019, Smithson was furloughed
when his position in the mechanical department was abolished.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ny9grk at no extra charge.[CC]
UNION SECURITY: Second Amended Scheduling Order Entered
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOINETTE
LEWIS-ABDULHAADI, v. UNION SECURITY INSURANCE CO., SUN LIFE
ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA AND MERAKEY, USA, Case No. (), the Hon.
Judge Wendy Beetlestone entered an second amended scheduling order
as follows:
-- the Plaintiff's motion for class Sept. 20, 2022
certification is due no later
than:
-- The Defendants' Briefs in Oct. 20, 2022
Opposition to Class
Certification are due by:
-- The Plaintiff's Reply Brief Nov. 14, 2022
in Further Support of Class
Certification shall be due
on:
-- All fact discovery shall be April 20, 2023
completed by:
-- Any expert reports are due May 23, 2023
no later than:
-- If an expert report is June 23, 2023
intended solely to contradict
or rebut evidence on the same
subject matter identified by
another party, counsel shall
serve such report on counsel
for every other party no
later than:
-- Any discovery depositions of July 28, 2023
expert witnesses shall be
completed by:
-- Any motions for summary August 29, 2023
judgment and/or Daubert
motions shall be filed
and served on or before:
-- Any oppositions to summary September 29, 2023
judgment shall be filed no
later than:
USIC is a national provider of Medicare Supplement insurance
solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wKnuQv at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED COLLECTION: Fedida Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Debts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miri Fedida, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., Case No.
CACE-22-006670 (Fla. 17th Judicial Ct., Broward Cty., May 6, 2022),
is brought to seek redress for the illegal practices of the
Defendant concerning the collection of debts, in violation of the
Florida Consumer Collection Protection Act ("FCCPA") and the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA ").
The Defendant began to attempt to collect an alleged consumer debt
from the Plaintiff. On January 18, 2022, the Defendant sent the
Plaintiff a collection letter seeking to collect a balance
allegedly incurred for personal purposes. On February 3, 2022, the
Plaintiff called the Defendant to dispute the debt in order to have
the debt marked as disputed, and that the debt not be assumed to be
valid as per 1692g of the FDCPA.
The Plaintiff spoke with the Defendant's debt collector employee,
who demanded that the Plaintiff provide a reason for her dispute.
The Defendant's demand is illegal and intended to harass, deceive,
and prejudice the Plaintiff. The Defendant's collection
representative followed the collection protocols of the Defendant
and did not deviate from same. The Defendant failed to train its
collection employees to accept a consumer's dispute without
demanding a reason from consumers. The Defendant contradicts
consumers' right to dispute a debt and overcome the presumption of
validity at the end of the initial dispute period. At the
termination of the telephone call, the Plaintiff was left with the
understanding that she could not dispute the debt and have it
marked as disputed.
The Letter's language violates the FCCPA and the FCCPA. The
Defendant used materially false, deceptive, misleading
representations and means in its attempted collection of the
Plaintiffs alleged debt. The Defendant's communications were
designed to cause the debtor to suffer a harmful disadvantage in
charting a course of action in response to the Defendant's
collection efforts. The Defendant violated the Plaintiff's right to
not be the target of misleading debt collection communications. The
Defendant violated Plaintiff's right to a truthful and fair debt
collection process. The Plaintiff suffered injury in fact by being
subjected to the Defendant's unfair and abusive practices. The
Plaintiff suffered actual harm by being the target of the
Defendant's misleading debt collection communications, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Broward County, Florida
and is a consumer.
The Defendant is a foreign limited liability company, incorporated
in the State of Ohio and is a "debt collector."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Omar M. Salazar II, Esq.
Ely R. Levy, Esq.
LEVY & PARTNERS, PLLC
3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: (954) 727-8570
Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
Primary Email: omar@lawlp.com
Secondary Email: claudia@lawlp.com
frances@lawlp.com
UNITED EQUITABLE: Ill. App. Affirms Dismissal of Bond Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ASHLEY BOND, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED EQUITABLE
INSURANCE GROUP, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 1-21-0732 (Ill.
App.), the Appellate Court of Illinois for the First District,
Second Division, affirms the trial court's order granting the
Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismisses the Plaintiff's
complaint.
I. Introduction
After her car was destroyed in an accident, Plaintiff Bond filed a
complaint in the circuit court alleging that her insurer, Defendant
United Equitable breached the insurance contract by failing to
include sales tax and title fees when it calculated her payout. The
Plaintiff argues that those fees are necessarily incurred when a
vehicle is a total loss and that her policy and Illinois law
entitle her to payment for those fees. She seeks to represent
similarly situated individuals in a class action against the
Defendant.
The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Plaintiff
failed to follow the required procedure to receive reimbursement
for the taxes and fees from the insurer. The trial court determined
that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the relevant requirements
to obligate the insurance company to pay the taxes and fees and
dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint. The Plaintiff appeals.
II. Background
Plaintiff Bond was involved in a car accident, and her vehicle was
determined to be a total loss. Following the accident, she made a
claim to her insurer, Defendant United Equitable. It is undisputed
that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the proper amount for her
loss, except the Defendant did not pay for the sums in dispute in
the case -- the sales tax, title transfer fees, and tag transfer
fees. Those are the costs that the Plaintiff claims she would
necessarily incur upon replacing her vehicle.
To operate a vehicle in Illinois, Illinois law requires vehicle
owners to secure a title for the vehicle and register the vehicle.
The current fee for titling a vehicle is $95. The fee for
transferring the registration for a vehicle is $25. The State of
Illinois currently imposes sales tax of at least 6.25% on the
purchase of a vehicle. The Plaintiff claims that defendant breached
its insurance contract with her when it failed to include those
amounts in her payout.
Under the insurance policy at issue in the case, in the event of a
total loss, the Defendant promised to pay "the cost of replacing
the owned automobile." The Defendant's obligation under the policy
is limited to a maximum of the actual cash value of the insured
vehicle. "Actual cash value" is not specifically defined in the
policy. The policy does not specifically mention reimbursement for
sales tax or title fees in the context of paying a total loss
claim.
The Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff that is required by
the Department of Insurance's regulations. Included in that notice
is the regulation that details the steps an insured can take to
obtain reimbursement for sales tax and title fees upon replacing
the insured vehicle. The insured has to actually replace the
vehicle and then provide documentation of the replacement to the
insurer. The notice also explains that, if the enumerated steps are
not followed, the insurer is not required to pay sales tax and
title fees. Plaintiff never notified defendant that she replaced
her vehicle, and she did not seek the payment of sales tax and
title fees from defendant within the time period set forth in the
regulation.
The Plaintiff filed the complaint in the case seeking payment for
sales tax and title fees. She contends that those costs are
encompassed within the "actual cash value" of her vehicle because
those costs are necessarily incurred to replace her vehicle. The
Plaintiff seeks to represent similarly situated individuals in a
class action against the Defendant. The Defendant moved to dismiss
the complaint, arguing that the Plaintiff's claims were defeated by
Illinois law and by certain indisputable evidence. The trial court
issued a written ruling in which it dismissed the Plaintiff's
complaint with prejudice. The Plaintiff now appeals.
III. Analysis
The Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of her complaint. Her complaint
was dismissed on the Defendant's motion, and the motion was brought
under section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS
5/2-619 (West 2020)). The purpose of a section 2-619 motion to
dismiss is to dispose of issues of law and easily proved issues of
fact at the outset of the litigation. Although a section 2-619
motion to dismiss admits the legal sufficiency of a complaint, it
raises defects, defenses, or some other affirmative matter
appearing on the face of the complaint or established by external
submissions, that defeat the Plaintiff's claim.
The Appellate Court reviews the trial court's decision to grant a
motion to dismiss de novo. It concludes that the specific and
unambiguous terms of the regulation targeted directly at the issue
presented in the case control the disposition. If the insured does
not take the steps outlined in the regulation, the Department of
Insurance has dictated that the insurer "shall not be required to
reimburse the insured for the sales taxes or transfer or title
fees."
The Department of Insurance's administrative regulations require
insurers to provide notice to the insured about the steps the
insured is required to take if she wants to receive payment for
sales tax and title fees. Unrebutted evidence was submitted that
the Defendant provided the required notice of the procedure to the
Plaintiff. The unrebutted evidence further showed that the
Plaintiff did not comply with the procedure to entitle her to
payment. The Defendant, therefore, established that the Plaintiff
is not entitled to payment for the sales tax and title fees she
seeks in the case. The trial court correctly dismissed the
complaint.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirms.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 17, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p99x7nt from Leagle.com.
Gary M. Klinger -- gmason@masonllp.com -- of Mason Lietz & Klinger
LLP, of Chicago, Jacob L. Phillips --
jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com -- of Norm and PLLC, of Orlando,
Florida, and Rachel Dapeer -- rachel@edelsberglaw.com -- of Dapeer
Law, P.A., of Miami, Florida, for the Appellant.
Evan B. Karnes II and Everardo Martinez, of Karnes Law Chtrd., of
Chicago, for the Appellee.
UNITED SERVICES: Partly Wins Dismissal of MSP's 2nd Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS
SERIES 44, LLC, MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, and SERIES PMPI, a designated
series of MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, Plaintiffs v. UNITED SERVICES
AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and USAA
GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-21530-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES (S.D. Fla.), Judge Darrin P. Gayles
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
grants in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.
I. Background
Plaintiffs MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC ("MSPRC"), MSP Recovery
Claims Series 44, LLC ("Series 44"), MSPA Claims 1, LLC ("MSPAC")
and Series PMPI, a designated series of MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC
("MAO-MSO") bring the putative class action against Defendants
United Services Automobile Association ("USAA"), USAA Casualty
Insurance Co. ("USAA Casualty"), and USAA General Indemnity Co.
("USAA General"), seeking reimbursement for conditional payments
made on behalf of Medicare Part C enrollees in accordance with the
Medicare Secondary Payer Act ("MSP Act").
The Plaintiffs and their related entities "are collection agencies
that specialize in recovering funds on behalf of various actors in
the Medicare Advantage system." They llege that they have standing
to bring MSP Claims against Defendants based on assignments from
Assignors AvMed, Inc., ConnectiCare, Inc. ("CONC"), Interamerican
Medical Center ("IMC"), Preferred Medical Plan, Inc. ("PMPI"), and
Health First Health Plan, Inc. ("HFHP").
The Plaintiffs and their related entities have filed hundreds of
actions against insurance companies. Included in those many actions
are three actions filed by some of the Plaintiffs in the instant
action against some of the Defendants in the present action. On
March 13, 2017, MSPAC, MAO-MSO, and MSP Recovery, LLC filed an
action against USAA Casualty alleging claims under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1395y(b)(3)(A) and 42 C.F.R. Section 411.24(e) -- MAO-MSO
Recovery II, LLC, et al. v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., No. 17-cv-20946-JAL
(S.D. Fla.) ("Prior Action 1"). On April 4, 2018, after three
attempts at pleading claims against USAA Casualty, including a
second amended complaint which replaced MSP Recovery, LLC with
MSPRC, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Prior Action 1.
On April 5, 2017, MSPAC, MAO-MSO, and MSP Recovery, LLC filed
another action against USAA Casualty alleging a claim under 42
U.S.C. Section 1395y(b)(3)(A) -- MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, et al.
v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., No. 17-cv-21289-KMW (S.D. Fla.) ("Prior
Action 2"). After multiple attempts to plead their claims, the
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Prior Action 2.
Finally, on Aug. 10, 2017, MSPRC filed an action against USAA in
the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida
("Prior Action 3"). USAA removed Prior Action 3 to the present
Court -- MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. United Services Auto
Ass'n, No. 18-cv-21626-CMA. On July 2, 2018, MSPRC filed a third
amended complaint in Prior Action 3, dropping USAA as a defendant
and replacing it with USAA General. On Oct. 19, 2018, the Court
dismissed Prior Action 3 against USAA General.
On April 9, 2020, MSPRC and MSPAC filed the putative class action
against USAA, USAA Casualty, USAA General, Garrison Property and
Casualty Co. ("Garrison"), USAA County Mutual Insurance Company
("USAA County"), and USAA Texas Lloyd's Company ("USAA Texas")
alleging (1) a private cause of action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1395y(b)(3)(A), and (2) breach of contract via subrogation,
pursuant to 42 C.F.R. Section 411.24(e). On March 8, 2021, the
Court dismissed the Complaint as a shotgun pleading.
In particular, the Court found that the Complaint (1) attempted to
raise a "greater universe" of MSP Act claims without providing any
detail about those claims beyond certain exemplars; (2) lumped
together that "greater universe" of MSP Act claims in only two
counts, in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10; (3)
improperly incorporated all of the factual allegations into each
count without properly tying each of those factual allegations to
the claims raised and improperly adopted all of Count I's
allegations into Count II; and (4) asserted claims against all of
the Defendants without specifying which of the Defendants are
responsible for which acts or omissions. In addition, the Court
found that the Complaint adequately alleged, via exemplars,
standing as to MSPRC, but not as to MSPAC because MSPAC was not a
party to any of the alleged assignments.
On March 29, 2021, MSPRC and MSPAC, now joined by Series 44 and
MAO-MSO, filed an Amended Complaint. In the Amended Complaint,
Plaintiffs dropped Garrison, USAA County, and USAA Texas as
Defendants and eliminated the claim under 42 C.F.R. Section
411.24(e). After Defendants moved to dismiss, the Plaintiffs sought
leave to amend their complaint again. The Court granted leave to
amend but held that the Plaintiffs would not be permitted to file
any additional amendments to their claims.
The Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") contains three counts, each a
private cause of action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1395y(b)(3)(A) against USAA (Count I), USAA General (Count II), and
USAA Casualty (Count III). To establish standing, the Plaintiffs
allege nine examples of its assignors' MSP claims (the
"Exemplars").
For each Exemplar, the Plaintiffs allege that (1) an enrollee in
either an AvMed, IMC, CONC, or HFHP Medicare Advantage plan had a
primary policy of insurance with either USAA, USAA General, or USAA
Casualty; (2) the enrollee was injured in an accident; (3) AvMed,
IMC, CONC, or HFHP made conditional payments; and (4) USAA, USAA
General, or USAA Casualty failed to pay and/or reimburse those
conditional payments.
In addition to the Exemplars, the Plaintiffs allege that a
spreadsheet, attached to the SAC as Exhibit A, identifies "multiple
instances in which their assignors made conditional payments for
accident-related medical expenses which should have been made
and/or reimbursed by Defendants." The spreadsheet lists enrollees'
member IDs and names (redacted), enrollment dates, the contract
plan numbers, the reporting primary insurers (e.g., USAA), the
types of insurance, and the assignors, but contains no information
about specific accidents, conditional payments by the Plaintiffs'
assignors, or whether Defendants paid or reimbursed the assignors.
The Plaintiffs also allege that another spreadsheet, attached to
the SAC as Exhibit B, identifies instances "where the Defendants
are identified in police crash and incident reports as the insurer
contractually obligated to provide primary payment on behalf of
Enrollees for unreimbursed conditional payments made by the
Plaintiffs' assignors in connection with accident-related medical
expenses, but failed to report that primary payer responsibility to
CMS."
On June 21, 2021, the Defendants moved to dismiss the SAC arguing
(1) the action is barred by res judicata; (2) the Plaintiffs fail
to allege standing; (3) the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim; (4)
the Plaintiffs failed to comply with Florida Statute Section
627.736(10) for the "no fault" claims; and (5) Series 44 has no
standing because its alleged assignments post-date the filing of
the Action.
III. Analysis
A. Res Judicata
The Defendants argue that the action is barred by res judicata
because Plaintiffs MSPRC, MSPAC, and MAO-MSO previously filed and
voluntarily dismissed Prior Action 1 and Prior Action 2 against
USAA Casualty and voluntarily dismissed the claims against USAA in
Prior Action 3.
Judge Gayles finds that at this stage of the litigation, he cannot
determine whether the Plaintiffs' claims are barred by res
judicata. While he is aware of the Plaintiffs' prior actions, claim
preclusion is not apparent from the face of the SAC. Accordingly,
the motion to dismiss on this ground is denied without prejudice.
The Defendants may raise their res judicata defense in a motion for
summary judgment.
B. Exhibits
As they have done in several other actions in this and other
districts, the Plaintiffs rely on Exhibits A & B to establish
instances "in which their assignors made conditional payments for
accident-related medical expenses which should have been made
and/or reimbursed by Defendants," and "where the Defendants are
identified in police crash and incident reports as the insurer
contractually obligated to provide primary payment on behalf of
enrollees but failed to report that primary payer responsibility to
CMS."
Judge Gayles holds that the Plaintiffs' attempt to plead claims
based on these Exhibits violates the notice requirements of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, any purported
"facts" set forth in Exhibits A & B will not determine whether the
Plaintiffs have standing or state a claim.
C. Standing
The Defendants also argue that the Plaintiffs have no standing to
bring the claims set forth in the SAC. The assignee of a claim has
standing to assert an injury in fact suffered by the assignor."
Under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, an assignee has standing to
sue if '(1) its ultimate assignor suffered an injury-in-fact, and
(2) the assignor's claim arising from that injury was validly
assigned.'
Judge Gayles finds that the Plaintiffs sufficiently allege -- via
the Exemplars -- that AvMed, IMC, CONC, and HFHP suffered an actual
injury that is traceable to USAA, USAA Casualty, or USAA General's
conduct. And the Plaintiffs allege that they were assigned the
rights to the Exemplar claims by the Assignors.
The Plaintiffs' standing, however, is also limited to the
Exemplars. Each Exemplar only demonstrates standing by one
Plaintiff against one Defendant. Using D.C.(1) as an example, AvMed
assigned its claims against USAA for payments made after D.C.(1)
sustained injuries in an accident to MSPRC. Therefore, only MSPRC
has standing to bring claims against USAA for conditional payments
made based on D.C.'s Feb. 22, 2018 accident. And, as set forth,
Judge Gayles will not consider Exhibits A or B to demonstrate
standing. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied to the
extent the Plaintiffs show standing for each Plaintiff via the
Exemplars alleged in the SAC.
D. Failure to State a Claim
Judge Gayles finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately stated the
elements of a private cause of action under 42 U.S.C. Section
1395y(b)(3)(A) with respect to each Exemplar. For each Exemplar,
the Plaintiffs allege (1) the corresponding Defendant's status as a
primary plan, (2) that the Defendant's failure to provide for
primary payment or appropriate reimbursement, and (3) damages.
However, as with standing, the Plaintiffs' claims, and the
allegations supporting those claims, are limited to the Exemplars.
The Plaintiffs cannot rely on Exhibits A & B to expand the scope of
their claims.
E. Pre-Suit Demand Letter
The Defendants allege that, to the extent the Plaintiffs' claims
are based on no-fault policies, those claims must be dismissed
because the Plaintiffs' assignors did not send a pre-suit demand
letter. This argument is premature, Judge Gayles holds. He says,
the Plaintiffs allege in the SAC that "all conditions precedent to
the filing of this action have occurred or been performed." This is
sufficient, at this stage of the litigation, to fulfill the
pleading requirements for conditions precedent. Accordingly, the
motion to dismiss is denied as to this ground.
F. Series 44 Standing
The Defendants argue that Series 44 has no standing to bring its
claims because Series 44's assignment occurred after the filing of
this action. Judge Gayles disagrees. MSPRC, one of the original
Plaintiffs in the case, via its designated series 16-05-465, had
standing to bring claims relating to Exemplars T.H. and D.C.(2)
when the action was filed. Moreover, Series 44 was assigned those
claims before it was added to the SAC. Therefore, Series 44 has
standing to raise its claims. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is
denied as to this ground.
IV. Conclusion
Judge Gayles concludes that the SAC survives dismissal, but the
version that remains is much narrower than that originally pled. To
summarize, any claims based entirely on Exhibits A or B are
dismissed, and the Plaintiffs may not rely on the data set forth in
those Exhibits to establish standing or state a claim. In addition,
the Plaintiffs' claims are limited to Exemplars D.C.(1), G.P.,
J.C., V.S., C.C., S.M, H.B., T.H. and D.C.(2).
Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint is granted in part. To the extent the Plaintiffs allege
claims arising from facts alleged in their Exhibits A and B, those
claims are dismissed.
The Defendants will answer the Second Amended Complaint within 20
days of the date of the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 17, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/52ah4ky3 from Leagle.com.
UNITED STATES: Bid for Class Cert. Must be Filed by Oct. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Center For Leadership And
Justice, et al., v. United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01728 (D. Conn.), the Hon.
Judge Sarah A.L. Merriam entered an order on motion for extension
of time as follows:
-- Any motion for class certification October 30, 2022
shall be filed on or before:
-- Motions for summary judgment, if October 30, 2022
any, shall be filed on or before:
-- Responses to any motions for December 29, 2022
class certification and/or
summary judgment shall be
filed on or before:
-- Any reply memoranda to such January 28, 2023
motions shall be filed on or
before:
The remaining deadlines set forth in the Revised Scheduling Order
and Case Management Plan remain in effect, says Judge Merriam.
HUD is one of the executive departments of the U.S. federal
government.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights –
Housing/Accommodations.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Court of Federal Claims Dismisses Sofman Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PETER SOFMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant, Case No. 10-157 (Fed. Cl.), Judge Thompson M. Dietz of
the U.S. Court of Federal Claims grants the government's motion to
dismiss.
The government seeks to dismiss request for relief numbers (3) and
(4) of the Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"). The government argues that these
"separate (non-monetary) claims for equitable relief" should be
dismissed because the Court is not authorized to award the
declaratory and injunctive relief sought by the Plaintiffs.
The case involves a group of retired United Airlines pilots,
proceeding pro se, seeking individual refunds of Federal Insurance
Contributions Act ("FICA") taxes that were paid on nonqualified
deferred compensation benefits, which were never received due to
the bankruptcy of their employer, United Airlines.
In addition to a refund of overpaid FICA taxes, the Plaintiffs also
seek:
(3) Judgment that the statute, 26 U.S.C. Sections 3121 (v)(2)
is so vague that it does not specifically enumerate the practices
that are either required or prohibited, so the ordinary employer
does not know whether the law requires a funded plan and transfer
of wealth, or whether a promise of future income is a taxable
event. The Regulations force the latter choice on the employer.
(4) Declaratory judgment that excess taxes be refunded to all
Retired United Pilots who suffered losses due to the intentionally
vague wording of the statute. The Agency should be notified that
its interpretation of Title 26 U.S.C. Section 3121 (v)(2) is wrong,
and ordered to follow 28 U.S.C. Section 1346(a)(1) requiring
refunds of all United Airlines retirees' excessively and improperly
collected taxes. Such an order would be ancillary to the Court's de
novo disposition of one or more Plaintiff claims, and not an
independent Declarative Judgment.
The government moves to dismiss request for relief numbers (3) and
(4) arguing, inter alia, that these requests seek declaratory and
injunctive relief that this Court lacks jurisdiction to award.
Judge Dietz agrees and accordingly dismisses request for relief
numbers (3) and (4) of the Complaint. He opines that the Court does
not have authority to grant the equitable relief sought by the
Plaintiffs in their request for relief numbers (3) and (4).
Although the Court has jurisdiction over tax refund claims, it
lacks "independent jurisdiction over claims for equitable relief,"
except in limited circumstances.
Under the Tucker Act, outside of bid protests, equitable relief is
only available when it is "incidental of and collateral to" a money
judgment. It further limits the Court's authority to provide
equitable relief that is incidental of and collateral to a money
judgment to "orders directing restoration to office or position,
placement in appropriate duty or retirement status, and correction
of applicable records." Thus, while the Court may consider the
Plaintiffs' monetary claims for refunds of overpaid FICA taxes
(subject to certain jurisdictional prerequisites), Judge Dietz
holds that the equitable relief requested by the Plaintiffs in
requests for relief numbers (3) and (4) falls clearly outside of
the Court's jurisdiction.
The only the Plaintiff who is active in the case that responded to
the government's motion to dismiss was Peter Sofman. After
conceding to the dismissal of request for relief number (3), Mr.
Sofman argues against dismissal of request for relief number (4) on
the grounds that the IRS' denial of the Plaintiffs' due process
rights in interpreting and applying Section 3121(v)(2) provides a
separate source of substantive law that creates a right to money
damages.
This argument, however, according to Judge Dietz, does not change
the wording and substance of request for relief number (4) in the
complaint, which seeks equitable relief that falls outside of the
Court's jurisdiction. Further, to the extent Mr. Sofman asserts
that request for relief number (4) is intended as a separate claim
for monetary relief arising from a denial of due process in
relation to the IRS's handling of the individual tax refund
requests, it is well-established that due process violations do not
provide the Court with jurisdiction because the Due Process Clause
of the Fifth Amendment does not mandate payment of money by the
government.
For these reasons, Judge Dietz grants the government's motion to
dismiss. Request for relief numbers (3) and (4) are dismissed from
the Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1).
The government also moves to dismiss on the grounds that requests
for relief number (3) and (4) are barred by the Anti-Injunction Act
and tax exception to the Declaratory Judgment Act, the Plaintiffs
lack standing to seek the requested injunctive and declaratory
relief, and the Plaintiffs' attempt to request refunds to "all UAL
retirees" is an improper attempt to pursue a class action. Because
the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested declaratory
relief, Judge Dietz does not reach these additional grounds for
dismissal.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 17, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yzaxxcde from
Leagle.com.
Peter Sofman, in Stamford, Connecticut, pro se.
Jason Bergmann, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, in
Washington, D.C., counsel for the Defendant.
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Underwrites Less Creditworthy Loans, Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. upstart holdings, INC., DAVID
J. GIROUARD, and SANJAY DATTA, Case No. 3:22-cv-02973 (N.D. Cal.,
May 19, 2022) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased Upstart securities between March
18, 2021 and May 9, 2022, inclusive against Upstart and certain of
its officers seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants claimed that the lack of loans the Company retained on
its balance sheet ensured it only was exposed to limited credit
risk. In reality, as investors learned after markets closed on May
9, 2022, the Company’s highly touted, AI underwriting model was
unable to adequately assess credit risk in changing macroeconomic
conditions. As a result, Upstart had been increasingly underwriting
progressively less creditworthy loans throughout the Class Period,
says the suit.
Plaintiff Plymouth County Retirement Association is a public
pension system organized for the benefit of current and retired
municipal and county employees of Plymouth County, Massachusetts.
The Plaintiff manages approximately $1.2 billion in assets. The
Plaintiff purchased Upstart common stock during the Class Period
and suffered damages as a result of the alleged federal securities
law violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or
material omissions.
Upstart is a financial technology firm that uses artificial
intelligence (AI) and data science to underwrite consumer credit.
The Company partners with banks to offer credit to consumers,
either through the Upstart website or through banking partner
websites embedded with Upstart technology. Upstart claims that its
underwriting process allows banking partners to originate credit
with higher approval rates, lower loss rates, and a high degree of
automation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David R. Kaplan, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
12750 High Bluff Drive, Suite 475
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 997-0860
Facsimile: (858) 369-0096
E-mail: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com
WEST BEND MUTUAL: No Joke Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as No Joke, Inc., individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Company,
Case No. 2022-MR-0000118 was removed from the Circuit Court of
Winnebago County, IL, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on May 18, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-50159 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated other Insurance Contract for Breach of
Contract.
West Bend Mutual Insurance Company --
https://www.thesilverlining.com/ -- is an insurance company in West
Bend, Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason R. Fathallah, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
511 North Broadway, Suite 1100
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: (414) 273-2100
Email: jason.fathallah@huschblackwell.com
YEEHAWCOWBOY.COM LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against YeehawCowboy.com,
LLC. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. YeehawCowboy.com, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04184 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
YeehawCowboy -- https://yeehawcowboy.com/ -- offers the biggest
selection in exotic boots, western cowboy boots and work boots for
men, women and children.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
YUMMYEARTH INC: Marino Files Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against YummyEarth Inc. The
case is styled as Jennifer Marino, individually, and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. YummyEarth Inc., Case No.
4:22-cv-02739-KAW (N.D. Cal., May 8, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
YummyEarth Inc. -- https://yumearth.com/ -- manufactures
confectionery products. The Company offers lollipops, gummy bears,
fruit snacks, sours, hard candies, and vitamin food products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Terrence Aumais, Esq.
GIRARDI KEESE
1126 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017-1904
Phone: (213) 977-0211
Email: caumais@girardikeese.com
- and -
John Ryan Gustafson, Esq.
GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
2330 Westwood Blvd., Suite 103
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (310) 274-4663
Email: jrg@ggallp.com
ZAMORA COMPANY: Brown Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zamora Company USA,
LLC. The case is styled as Tony Brown, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Zamora Company USA, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02703 (N.D. Ill., May 22, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Zamora Company -- https://zamoracompany.com/usa/ -- is a family
business specializing in premium wines and spirits.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***