/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220601.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, June 1, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 103
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Gooding Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
9W HALO WESTERN: Butt Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ADVANCED CALL CENTER: Whitaker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ADVOCATE AURORA: Uriel Sues Over Unlawful Trade Monopolization
AFNI INC: Garrett Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
AIG DIRECT INSURANCE: Radic TCPA Suit removed to S.D. Florida
ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Cole Sues Over Mismanagement of Mutual Funds
AMERIPRIDE SERVICES: Cake Love Sues Over Breach Of Contract
ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Airbag Inflators' Suit Could Trigger Product Recall
ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Britton Sues Over Inflator Defect in Vehicles
ARIZONA ARCHERY: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ARKEMA FRANCE: S.D. Texas Grants Prantil's Bid to Certify Class
ASSET PROTECTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Ayala Suit Alleges
AVEDA LIFESTYLE: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BASHEN CORPORATION: Underpays Attorney Consultants, Phipps Claims
BAYER AG: N.D. California Refuses to Toss Sheet Metal Workers Suit
BEAUTY FIX MEDSPA: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BELDEN INC: Deadline in Case Management Order Extended
BELMARK INC: Fails to Properly Pay Press Operators, Diamond Claims
CALIBER HOME: Baldwin Sues Over Non Payment of Real Property Tax
CALIFORNIA: Pro Se Filings in Armstrong Suit to Be Given to Counsel
CAREDX INC: Faces Plumbers Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
CARING FOR MONTANANS: Smith Suit Removed to D. Montana
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Wright Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
CITIZENS & NORTHERN: Court Dismisses Smith Suit With Prejudice
CLARIVATE PLC: Financial Statements Misled Investors, Suit Says
CLARIVATE PLC: Robbins Named Lead Counsel in Parot Securities Suit
COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Class Action Over Unregistered Securities
COINBASE GLOBAL: Feliz Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
COLORADO CORING: Snider Seeks Unpaid Wages for Construction Workers
COMPASS FAMILY: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Fails to Pay Interest on Late Payments
COTTAGES ON MOUNTAIN: Faces Woody Suit Over Overtime Violations
CREDENCE RESOURCE: Goldstein Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CVS HEALTH: Mier Appeals Class Certification Bid Denial
DEERE & CO: Monopolizes Repair Service Market, Deline Suit Says
DESE ENTERPRISE: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DEUTSCHE BANK: Court Narrows Claims in Karimi's 2nd Amended Suit
DIVER'S SUPPLY: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DRC GROUP INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anacacy Suit Alleges
DRUVE ENTERPRISES: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DSE HOCKEY CLUB: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EDGEWATER POWER: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EIGHT ORANGES: Mangahas Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
EISENBERG LOGISTICS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Coffin Suit Says
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Cordero Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
ENSERVCO CORP: Faces Saee Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
ENVIOS ESPINOZA: Fails to Pay Employees' OT Wages, Zambrano Says
EXECUTIVE LE SOLEIL: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Nunez Claims
FAMOUS BRANDS: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FAST 6 OF AMERICA: Moreira Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beanland Suit Alleges
FERMENTED SCIENCES: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FIAT CHRYSLER: Bagley Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Stewart FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California
FIRST ORDER: Peacock Class Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA
FOREST RIVER: Nelson Files Suit in D. Montana
FORWARD FOODS: Faces Provenzano Suit Over Mislabeled Protein Bars
FOTO BOYZ: Servidio Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
GARNET & GOLD: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOFUND LLC: Avatgarde Sues Over Improper Debt Collection Practices
GOLD COUNTRY: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOOGLE LLC: Walkingeagle Sues Over Auto Renewal of YT Subscriptions
HIGHWAVE INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HIVE BRANDS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HOLY GRAIL: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HSN INC: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Short Suit Transferred to C.D. California
INJURED WORKERS: Fails to Timely Detect Data Breach, Webb Alleges
J.B. HUNT: Manriquez FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California
J.M. SMUCKER: Faces Suit Over Misleading Peanut Butter Products
JADE EATERY: Yuwono Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Edley Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
JOHNSON'S TREE: Faces Arredondo Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
JUUL LABS: Cowan Community Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Indiana
JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Buy E-Cigarettes, Southeast Suit Says
JUUL LABS: Faces Caston School Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
KA INVESTIGATIONS-SECURITY: Faces Coombs FLSA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
KAM ENTERPRISES: Davis Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
KEEPER'S KIDS: Sisney Sues Over Misclassification, Unpaid Wages
KELLY GROSSMAN: White Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Letter
KENNY'S CANDY: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KEVIN LIPTON: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KLOVA INC: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Ramirez Suit Moved From S.D. Tex. to W.D. Pa.
KROGER CO: Adhesive Patches Won't Last for 8 Hours, Lee Alleges
LAYLA GRAYCE: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LIDL US: Lopez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
LINEROCK INVESTMENTS: Williams Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
LIV GROUP: Dolce Files Suit in S.D. New York
LONG ISLAND MARINE: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LOVE BUGS: Deveny Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Tips for Pet Sitters
LTL MANAGEMENT: SDCERA Appeals Ruling in Securities Class Suit
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Houston Files Suit in D. Arizona
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Violates Wage & Labor Laws, Wood Class Suit Says
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Scope of Discovery Dispute in Edwards Suit Solved
MEDSCAN LABORATORY: Krol Files Suit in D. North Dakota
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Court Dismisses Counts 2 & 3 in Cohen Suit
MERCARI INC: Duff Files Suit in N.D. California
MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Schaired Files Suit in S.D. California
MYLEC INC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEIL BYRD: Glass Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Suit Alleges Misleading Glucose Control Drinks
NITRO BEVERAGE: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NORTHEAST RADIOLOGY: Judge Dismisses PACS Data Breach Lawsuit
NSURE INSURANCE: Devivo Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads
O'GARA GROUP: Metz Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & ERISA Benefits
OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in Moore
OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in Russum
OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in Slater
OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in Sykes
OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in Thomas
OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in Trimble
OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in Vollert
OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in Yocum
OS RESTAURANT: Thomas Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
PACIFICA SENIOR: Tan Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations
PANEL SYSTEMS: Sierra Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA
PARKER HANNIFIN: Fails to Secure Employees Info, Rowe Suit Alleges
PARKER HANNIFIN: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Rowe Suit Alleges
PAUL J. HOOTEN: Fischman Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
PERRY ELLIS: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PFIZER INC: Faces MSP Suit Over Conspiratorial Drug Price Increase
PHH MORTGAGE: Court Rejects Withdrawal of Reference in O'Flynn Suit
PINGORA LOAN: Kassem Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
PINNACLE TOO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Charles Suit Claims
POWERLINE CYCLES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Acton Suit Alleges
PRICKLEE LLC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PRIDE HOSPITALITY: Muhammad Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
PRINCE OF PEACE: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PROCTORU INC: Stalcup Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Mouynivong Sues Over Unreimbursed Coverage
RACERWORLD LLC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Myers Suit Granted
RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Lucero Files ADA Suit in N.D. California
RELIABLE LANDSCAPE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bergen Suit Claims
RELIANT PRO: Avoids Overtime Pay Obligations, Anderson Suit Claims
REVELETTE ENTERPRISES: Underpays Managers, Karnell Suit Claims
REWARD ZONE: Trim Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal
RTZN BRANDS: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RUSSELL STOVER: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAMPLER STORES: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAMSONITE COMPANY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SCRUPLES PROFESSIONAL: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SIKI EAGLE: Faces Dawood Suit Over Mislabeled Air Purifiers
SINCERELY LLC: Gonzalez Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
SOLAREN RISK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hendrixson Suit Alleges
SOM FRIENDS: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Lollis Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
SPERO THERAPEUTICS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of July 25 Deadline
SPORTRX LLC: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SSM HEALTH CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brashear Suit Alleges
STERICYCLE INC: 25% Attorney Fee Award in Securities Suit Vacated
STOVER & CO: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUPER73 INC: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Weaver Sues Over Mismanagement of Corporate Assets
TEAK WAREHOUSE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
THEORY LLC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Faces Tredinnick Sues Over Surrender Charges
TRUE CLASSIC TEES: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TWITTER INC: Musk Manipulates Stock Price, Heresniak Suit Claims
U-LINE CORPORATION: Cadiz Sues Over Supervisors' Unpaid Overtime
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aquino Suit Alleges
ULTIMATE CREATIONS: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
UNITED STATES: Black Lives Appeals Judgment in Civil Rights Suit
UNITED STATES: Murphy Sues Over Unfair American Community Survey
UNITED STATES: Violates Informed Consent Laws, Servicemen Allege
VIEW INC: Faces Damidi Suit Over Artificially Inflated Stock Price
WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Seeks to Stay Getchel Class Cert. Bid
WATER DAMAGE: Holloway Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WATER PRO: Perez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
WEGMANS FOOD: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
WELLS FARGO: Price Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Telephone Bankers
WHALENECK MARINA: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WHITNEY MUSEUM: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WILD FRIENDS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WORLD AUTOMOTIVE: May Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Illinois
WSP USA: Nolau Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
*********
3M COMPANY: Gooding Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL GOODING and JULIE GOODING, his wife, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50),
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01655-RMG (D.S.C., May 25, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery,
inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent
concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, wantonness,
and per quod claim.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by
Plaintiff Paul Gooding as a result of his exposure to the
Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing
synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively
known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public
entities and civilian firefighters, including Mr. Gooding, 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, Mr. Gooding was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed respiratory disease, says the
suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
9W HALO WESTERN: Butt Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 9W Halo Western OPCO
L.P., et al. The case is styled as Waqas N. Butt, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. 9W Halo Western OPCO
L.P., a Delaware limited liability company, Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2022-00320489-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May
24, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited"
9W Halo Western OPCO L.P. was founded in 2016. The company's line
of business includes supplying linen to commercial establishments
and household users.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christina Marie Lucio, Esq.
FARNAES & LUCIO, APC
2235 Encinitas Blvd., Ste. 210
Encinitas, CA 92024-4357
Phone: 760-942-9433
Fax: 760-452-4421
Email: clucio@farnaeslaw.com
ADVANCED CALL CENTER: Whitaker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advanced Call Center
Technologies, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Alexandria D.
Whitaker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, Does 1–10,
Case No. 34-2022-00319984-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., May 16, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other employment - Civil Unlimited."
Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC (ACT) --
https://www.acttoday.com/ -- is a provider of domestic (USA) and
near shore outsourced call center services to the financial
services, mortgage, telecommunications, healthcare, cable and
retail industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: 213-232-3128
Fax: 213-232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
ADVOCATE AURORA: Uriel Sues Over Unlawful Trade Monopolization
--------------------------------------------------------------
URIEL PHARMACY HEALTH AND WELFARE PLAN; and URIEL PHARMACY, INC.,
on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. ADVOCATE AURORA HEALTH, INC. and AURORA HEALTH CARE, INC., Case
No. 2:22-cv-00610 (E.D. Wisc., May 24, 2022) is an action for
restraint of trade, unlawful monopolization, and unfair methods of
competition seeking classwide damages and injunctive and equitable
relief under the Sherman Act, and Wisconsin's antitrust laws.
According to the complaint, for the past several years, AAH has
engaged in anticompetitive methods to restrain trade and abuse its
market dominance for the purpose of foreclosing competition and
extracting unreasonably high prices from the Plaintiffs and other
Wisconsin businesses, unions, and taxpayers. These abuses include
unlawfully forcing commercial health plans to include in their
networks all of AAH’s overpriced facilities even if they would
rather only include some, and aggressively blocking employers and
insurers from directing individuals to higher value care at non-AAH
facilities. AAH has gone to extraordinary lengths to suppress
innovative insurance products, such as tiered plans, that would
reduce costs for employers. And it has used a combination of
acquisitions, referral restraints, non-competes, and gag clauses to
suppress competition from other healthcare providers and attempt to
expand its monopoly over acute inpatient hospital services into
other, separate markets, the suit says.
Rising healthcare costs have had a significantly negative impact on
Wisconsin employers, workers, and taxpayers. According to national
academic studies and state-specific research in Wisconsin, those
rising healthcare costs are primarily driven by the rapidly
increasing prices charged by large hospital systems, and these
price increases are driven primarily by consolidation among
hospital providers. There is a bipartisan consensus among
healthcare policy experts that consolidation of hospitals causes
higher prices without resulting in corresponding increases in
quality or patient satisfaction. This is because hospital systems
with greater market power are able to extract higher prices by
engaging in anticompetitive behavior, such as imposing vertical
restraints that leverage the market power they have over one market
to extract supracompetitive profits from other markets in which the
systems face greater competition, the suit added.
Advocate Aurora is a non-profit health care system with dual
headquarters located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Downers Grove,
Illinois. As of 2021, the AAH system has 26 hospitals and more than
500 sites of care, with 75,000 employees, including 10,000 employed
physicians.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin M. St. John, Esq.
BELL GIFTOS ST. JOHN LLC
5325 Wall Street, Suite 2200
Madison, WI 53718
Telephone: (608) 216-7990
E-mail: kstjohn@bellgiftos.com
- and -
Jamie Crooks, Esq.
Alexander Rose, Esq.
FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP
1825 7th Street NW, No. 821
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (617) 642-5569
E-mail: jamie@fairmarklaw.com
alexander@fairmarklaw.com
AFNI INC: Garrett Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Afni, Inc. The case
is styled as Charles Garrett, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Afni, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01067-SEB-MG
(S.D. Ind., May 23, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Act.
Afni -- https://afni.com/ -- is a global contact center company
that is based in the US and has clients all over the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas E. Irons, Esq.
Richard John Shea, Jr., Esq.
SAWIN & SHEA, LLC
6100 N. Keystone Avenue, Suite 620
Indianapolis, IN 46220
Phone: (317) 255-2600
Fax: (317) 255-2905
Email: tirons@sawinlaw.com
rshea@sawinlaw.com
AIG DIRECT INSURANCE: Radic TCPA Suit removed to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rebecca Radic, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AIG Direct Insurance Services, Inc.,
was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on May 23, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:22-cv-80772-XXXX to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
AIG Direct Insurance Services, Inc. -- https://www.aigdirect.com/
-- is one of the country's leading life insurance agencies.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Danielle Erica Shure, Esq.
MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP
2101 NW Corporate Blvd., Suite 316
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (561) 430-4728
Fax: (561) 982-8985
Email: danielle.shure@mhllp.com
ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Cole Sues Over Mismanagement of Mutual Funds
------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY E. COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS U.S. LLC; VIRTUS
STRATEGY TRUST f/k/a ALLIANZ FUNDS MULTI-STRATEGY TRUST; DONALD C.
BURKE; SARAH E. COGAN; DEBORAH A. DECOTIS; F. FORD DRUMMOND; SIDNEY
E. HARRIS; JOHN R. MALLIN; CONNIE D. MCDANIEL; PHILIP MCLOUGHLIN;
GERALDINE M. MCNAMARA; R. KEITH WALTON; BRIAN T. ZINO; and GEORGE
R. AYLWARD, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00747-MMA-WVG (S.D. Cal.,
May 24, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for breach
of fiduciary duty, common law negligence, and violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have breached the
fiduciary duties they owed to the Plaintiff and Class members by
failing to act solely for their benefit. The Defendants have
defrauded investors over multiple years by concealing losses, down
siding risks of a complex strategy, and failing to implement key
risk controls with respect to the Structured Alpha Mutual Funds.
Moreover, Defendant AGI issued false and misleading statements
about the Structured Alpha Mutual Funds in order to trade them at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. As a result
of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have
sustained damages, says the suit.
Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC is an investment adviser based in
New York, New York.
Virtus Strategy Trust, formerly known as the Allianz Funds
Multi-Strategy Trust, is a trust with its principal address located
in Greenfield, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elise R. Sanguinetti, Esq.
Robert M. Partain, Esq.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP
6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Telephone: (213) 468-0645
- and –
David S. Golub, Esq.
Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
One Landmark Square, 15th Floor
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 325-4491
Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
E-mail: dgolub@sgtlaw.com
sbloch@sgtlaw.com
isloss@sgtlaw.com
- and –
Jordan A. Goldstein, Esq.
Mitchell Nobel, Esq.
Samuel J. Kwak, Esq.
SELENDY GAY ELSBERG PLLC
1290 Avenue of the Americas, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10104
Telephone: (212) 390-9000
Facsimile: (212) 390-9399
E-mail: jgoldstein@selendygay.com
mnobel@selendygay.com
skwak@selendygay.com
AMERIPRIDE SERVICES: Cake Love Sues Over Breach Of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cake Love Co., on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
v. AMERIPRIDE SERVICES, LLC and ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES, INC.,
Case No. 0:22-cv-01301-PJS-ECW (D. Minn., May 13, 2022), is brought
arising out of the Defendants' systematic breach of the contract by
failing to provide the required written notice of intent increase
base prices.
The Plaintiff and members of the Classes rent items from the
Defendants such as linens, towels, floor mats, mop heads, uniforms
and aprons. The Defendants enter into a form Contract with the
Plaintiff and members of the Class in formalizing their business
relationship. Per the plain language of the Contract, the
Defendants are contractually required to provide advance written
notice of a base price increase exceeding 6% prior to imposing a
base price increase exceeding 6%.
Contrary to the letter and spirit of the Contract, the Defendants
have systematically increased base prices in excess of the
contractually permitted percentage increase (in fact, as high as
30%). Prior to imposing these base price increases in excess of 6%,
the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff and those other
customers the required written notice of intent to impose such
increases. Rather, the Defendants simply systematically imposed
these base price increases through regular invoicing, depriving the
Plaintiff and the Classes with an ability to reject the increase.
Accordingly, the Defendants unilaterally implemented base price
increases exceeding the allowed percentage without complying with
their own contractual requirement for such price increases. The
Defendants’ conduct constitutes systemic breaches of the
Contract. As a result of the Defendants’ breaches of the
Contract, Plaintiff and the Classes’ members have been damaged in
the form of excessive charges for Defendants’ services, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff Cake Love Co. is a California Corporation which
operates as a bakery with its principal place of business located
in Corona, California.
The Defendants operate a linen, uniform and laundry service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 389-0600 Main
Fax: (612) 389-0610 Facsimile
Email: mweiner@pswlaw.com
D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
Chantal Khalil, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, New York 10601
Phone: (914) 298-3281
Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
ckhalil@fbfglaw.com
- and -
Mark Potashnick, Esq.
WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
St. Louis, MO 63141
Phone: (314) 997-9150 ext. 2
Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com
ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Airbag Inflators' Suit Could Trigger Product Recall
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cristian Agatie at autoevolution.com reports that when the Takata
scandal exploded in 2013, few predicted it would become the biggest
safety recall in automotive history. More than 67 million vehicles
were recalled in the U.S. alone. But Takata is not the only parts
manufacturer to make faulty airbags. A class-action lawsuit was
recently filed in San Francisco against ARC Automotive for the same
reason.
The new lawsuit was filed after at least two people died and four
were injured because of the faulty airbag inflators. The three
carmakers mentioned in the case are General Motors, Ford, and
Volkswagen. According to NHTSA, which has been investigating the
matter for nearly seven years without a resolution, there are 51
million vehicles built with ARC inflators on U.S. roads. That
amounts to 10-20% of all passenger vehicles.
It is impossible to determine if your car is affected, even if you
tear it apart. That's because internal parts bear the markings of
the automaker or the airbag manufacturer, not the inflator maker.
"You could have a ticking time bomb in your lap and you've got no
way of knowing," said Frank Melton, a Florida lawyer who is among
those filing the new lawsuit, to Detroit News.
Like in the Takata recall, the ARC airbag inflators use ammonium
nitrate as a secondary propellant to inflate the airbags. When
exposed to moisture, the propellant can develop microscopic cracks,
making it burn too quickly and creating a larger explosion. This
can rupture the outer metal canister, sending shrapnel into the
cabin. That's precisely what happened with Takata airbags, tied to
28 deaths and hundreds of injuries globally.
Even though NHTSA opened an investigation into the matter in 2015,
it has yet to reach any clear conclusion. No wider recall has been
imposed yet, but there have been five limited recalls of the
inflators that totaled about 5,000 vehicles, including three
recalls by GM. Like in the early stages of the Takata recall, many
ARC ammonium nitrate inflators are still in use today.
"GM recalled only a small number of vehicles that contained a
particular lot of inflators, despite its knowledge that ARC driver-
and passenger-side inflators in various models and model years from
2002 through at least 2015 also had experienced ruptures," the
lawsuit says.
The lawsuit alleges that ARC knew about the dangers of using
ammonium nitrate. According to the case, after several ARC
inflators blew apart in 2019, ARC acknowledged that its use was
unacceptable for automotive airbags. [GN]
ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Britton Sues Over Inflator Defect in Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN BRITTON, EVA JACINTO, CELESTE FELICE, FRANCINE LEWIS, and
MATTHEW KAKOL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ARC AUTOMOTIVE, INC., AUDI
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC, FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, JOYSON SAFETY SYSTEMS, TOYODA GOSEI NORTH
AMERICA, INC., VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, and VOLKSWAGEN GROUP
OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03053-JCS (N.D.
Cal., May 24, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
common law fraudulent concealment, breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, violations of the Magnusson-Moss
Warranty Act, the New York General Business Law, and state consumer
protection laws.
The case arises from the manufacturing of defective toroidal stored
gas hybrid airbag inflators by Defendant ARC Automotive, Inc.,
which are installed in tens of millions of airbag assembly modules
utilized in vehicles manufactured by certain vehicle manufacturers,
including Audi, Ford, General Motors, and Volkswagen. The
Defendants were aware or should have been aware of the inflator
defect and its possibility to cause ruptures but failed to recall
all vehicles containing the defective inflators. As a result of the
Defendants' misconduct and fraudulent concealment, the Plaintiffs
and the Class either purchased or leased vehicles they otherwise
would not have, or paid more to own or lease their vehicles than
they would have paid, had the inflator defect been disclosed at the
time of purchase or lease, says the suit.
ARC Automotive, Inc. is a manufacturer of inflator, with its
principal place of business in Tennessee.
Audi Aktiengesellschaft is an automobile manufacturer, with its
principal place of business in Germany.
Audi of America, LLC is an automobile manufacturer, with its
principal place of business in Virginia.
Ford Motor Company is an automobile manufacturer, with its
principal place of business in Michigan.
General Motors, LLC is an automobile manufacturer, with its
principal place of business in Michigan.
Joyson Safety Systems is a manufacturer of automotive safety
systems, with its principal place of business in Michigan.
Toyoda Gosei North America, Inc. is a manufacturer of automotive
components and safety systems, with its principal place of business
in Michigan.
Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft is an automobile manufacturer, with
its principal place of business in Germany.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is an automobile manufacturer,
with its principal place of business in Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Niall P. McCarthy, Esq.
Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq.
Bethany M. Hill, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
E-mail: nmcarthy@cpmlegal.com
ecastillo@cpmlegal.com
bhill@cpmlegal.com
- and –
R. Frank Melton, II, Esq.
C. Richard Newsome, Esq.
William C. Ourand, Jr., Esq.
NEWSOME MELTON, PA
201 S. Orange St., #1500
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 280-1433
E-mail: melton@newsomelaw.com
newsome@newosmelaw.com
ourand@newsomelaw.com
- and –
Matthew D. Schultz, Esq.
William F. Cash, Esq.
Scott Warrick, Esq.
LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, RAFFERTY, PROCTOR, BUCHANAN, O'BRIEN,
BARR & MOUGEY, P.A.
316 S. Baylen St., Suite 600
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 435-7140
E-mail: mschultz@levinlaw.com
bcash@levinlaw.com
swarrick@levinlaw.com
- and –
Courtney L. Davenport, Esq.
THE DAVENPORT LAW FIRM, LLC
18805 Porterfield Way
Germantown, MD 20874
Telephone: (703) 901-1660
E-mail: courtney@thedavenportlawfirm.com
ARIZONA ARCHERY: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arizona Archery
Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Arizona Archery Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04291
(S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Arizona Archery Enterprises Inc. -- https://arizonaarchery.com/ --
is the world's largest manufacturer of arrow nocks and vanes.[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
ARKEMA FRANCE: S.D. Texas Grants Prantil's Bid to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, COREY PRANTIL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARKEMA FRANCE
S.A., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:17-CV-02960 (S.D.
Tex.), Judge Keith P. Allison of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, grants in part and
denies in part the following motions:
(1) the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Mr. Gary
Papke and Dr. Thomas Hamilton;
(2) the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Opinions of
Dr. Sheng Li;
(3) the Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Dr. John
Kilpatrick;
(4) the Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Mr. Marc
Glass;
(5) the Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Opinions of
Dr. Marco Kaltofen;
(6) the Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Opinions of
Drs. Richard Troast and Charles Werntz; and
(7) the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification
after Remand.
I. Background
The Defendants (collectively referred to as "Arkema") produced a
liquid organic peroxide called Luperox in a facility in Crosby,
Texas. The facility was built in a flood plain near the Gulf Coast.
In the days leading up to Aug. 24, 2017, it became clear that
Hurricane Harvey would make landfall nearby. Arkema waited to
implement its hurricane preparedness plan until Aug. 25, 2017.
Apparently, the plan did not meet the moment. Harvey stalled over
Texas, leading to several days of heavy rain and flooding. Arkema's
"ride-out" team moved almost 350,000 pounds of combustible
materials to elevated refrigerated trailers. The floodwaters
continued to rise, however, threatening the trailers' cooling
systems. The cooling systems eventually succumbed. Nine trailers
burned between August 31 and September 4, ejecting clouds of smoke
and ash into the sky. Two of the facility's wastewater tanks
overflowed. Before long, people near the facility began to report
rashes, headaches, eye irritation, blisters, and respiratory
issues.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all residents and real
property owners within a seven-mile radius of the Crosby facility.
They ask the Court to certify a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3)
for their common-law claims of negligence, trespass, and public
nuisance. They also ask the Court to certify an injunctive-relief
class under Rule 23(b)(2) for their claims under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
("CERCLA").
Previously, the Court granted Arkema's Motion to Exclude Dr. Bell;
denied as moot Arkema's Motion to Exclude Dr. Rogers; denied
Arkema's Motions to Exclude Mr. Glass, Dr. Kaltofen, and Dr.
Troast; and granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
Arkema appealed.
In Prantil v. Arkema Inc., the Fifth Circuit held that Daubert
applies in full force at the class certification stage. The Fifth
Circuit determined that the Court's previous Daubert analysis "was
not as searching in its assessment of the expert reports'
reliability as it would have been outside the certification
setting." The Court of Appeals recognized that "some of Arkema's
objections may only affect the weight of the reports without
undermining their fundamental reliability," but still made clear
that a comprehensive assessment of the reliability of those
opinions could not "be deferred." The Fifth Circuit therefore
vacated the Court's rulings on the parties' Motions to Exclude.
On the Plaintiffs' damages class, the Fifth Circuit held that the
Court's order did not adequately address the predominance prong of
Rule 23(b)(3). It determined that the order contained insufficient
details as to how the Court would conduct trial, and that the order
was "wanting in its answer to Arkema's arguments that a trial of
class claims would devolve into individualized inquiries on
causation, injury, and damages." As a result, the Fifth Circuit
instructed the Court to engage in more "discussion of how proof of
Arkema's conduct will affect trial," and noted that "future
certification proceedings would here benefit from detailing the
evidence the parties may use to prove or defend against liability
and its commonality to all class members." The Court of Appeals did
not hold that certification was necessarily improper, "only that
the relative balance of concededly common claim elements to
contested elements of causation and injury warrants closer
attention" on predominance. The Fifth Circuit therefore vacated the
Court's certification of the Plaintiffs' damages class.
On the Plaintiffs' injunctive-relief class, the Fifth Circuit held
that the Court's order did not "satisfy the requirement that
injunctive relief be reasonably specific," because it was unclear
"how the extent of the necessary property remediation can be
determined, and whether a responsive injunction can be fashioned to
account for Arkema's past remediation efforts." It therefore
vacated the Court's certification of Plaintiffs' Rule 23(b)(2)
injunctive-relief class.
II. Discussion
A. The Parties' Motions to Exclude
Post-Prantil, "the Daubert hurdle must be cleared when scientific
evidence is relevant to the decision to certify." As a result, the
Court must analyze the parties' Daubert motions before reaching the
Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification.
1. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Mr. Gary Papke and Dr. Thomas
Hamilton
The Plaintiffs originally moved to exclude portions of a joint
report offered by Mr. Papke and Dr. Hamilton because of confusion
concerning primary authorship. They also submitted that Mr. Papke
could not testify to certain opinions because he was unqualified to
do so. However, Arkema subsequently stipulated that it would not
offer Mr. Papke "to opine on or testify about the statistical
analyses that are presented in Section 2.8 (pages 30-35), Section
2.9 (pages 44-48), or Section 2.10 (pages 48-54) of his Sept. 17,
2021, report." Arkema also stipulated that it would "offer Dr.
Hamilton to opine on and testify about the statistical analyses
that are presented in Section 2.8 (pages 30-35), Section 2.9 (pages
44-48), and Section 2.10 (pages 48-54) of his Sept. 17, 2021,
report."
In light of these stipulations, as well as the deposition of Mr.
Papke that the Plaintiffs took on March 28, 2022, the Plaintiffs
have "voluntarily withdrawn and foregone their Motion to Exclude
Opinions Contained in the Expert Report of Gary Papke and Thomas
Hamilton." Judge Allison therefore denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Exclude Mr. Papke and Dr. Hamilton as moot.
2. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Dr. Sheng Li
Arkema offers opinions from Dr. Li to attack Dr. Kilpatrick's take
on diminution damages. The Plaintiffs, in turn, contend that Dr.
Li's opinions should be excluded because he lacks the requisite
qualifications, uses an unreliable methodology, offers improper
legal opinions, and presents irrelevant conclusions on R-squared
values. Judge Allison holds that some of these contentions do not
require the Court's attention at this moment.
Writ large, Judge Allison rejects the lion's share of the
Plaintiffs' arguments against Dr. Li. Dr. Li's opinions rest on his
expertise in economics and statistics, not real estate appraisal.
And with one exception -- Dr. Li's second opinion in Section IV-B
-- his methodologies are reliable and rooted in his expertise.
Judge Allison therefore denies Arkema's Motion to Exclude Dr. Li in
part and grants in part. Absent the one opinion identified from
Section IV-B, he finds that Dr. Li's opinions that prove relevant
to certification are reliable.
3. Arkema's Motion to Exclude Dr. John Kilpatrick
Dr. Kilpatrick's expert report is the lynchpin of the Plaintiffs'
damages class. Unfortunately for the Plaintiffs, however, Judge
Allison finds that Dr. Kilpatrick's opinions are unreliable and
must be excluded. He finds that Dr. Kilpatrick's opinions on
diminution in value are unreliable. Dr. Kilpatrick failed to
consider (and control for) differences between the Inside and
Outside areas. Judge Allison therefore cannot conclude that his
12.12% diminution figure is reliably attributable to the Arkema
Incident.
Dr. Kilpatrick also never provided statistics to validate his
trendline analysis. In addition, Dr. Kilpatrick's case study
analysis is deeply flawed. He did not know the contaminant at
issue, so he could not reliably conclude that the case studies were
apt. Plus, he used case studies instead of readily available
long-term data. And his calculation of the final 20% figure was not
based on any discernible scientific methodology. For these reasons,
Judge Allison Arkema's Motion and excludes Dr. Kilpatrick's
opinions under Daubert.
4. Arkema's Motion to Exclude Mr. Marc Glass
Arkema's next Motion targets Mr. Glass. The Plaintiffs rely on Mr.
Glass for a few different arguments on certification. They use Mr.
Glass to support their request for a site characterization and
remediation program. They use Mr. Glass to establish redressability
for standing purposes. And the Plaintiffs use Mr. Glass to show
that exposure can be determined on a class-wide basis such that the
class is cohesive.
Ultimately, Judge Allison finds that Mr. Glass' opinions pass
muster under Daubert. He rejects Arkema's arguments for excluding
Mr. Glass' opinions. In addition to the above analysis, Judge
Allison notes that he was impressed by Mr. Glass' competence and
reliability during his appearance at the Daubert hearing. His
testimony before the Court confirmed that his approach passes
muster. Judge Allison therefore finds that Mr. Glass' opinions are
relevant and reliable; Arkema's Motion to Exclude the Opinions of
Mr. Glass is denied.
5. Arkema's Motion to Exclude Dr. Marco Kaltofen
The Plaintiffs make clear the high-level conclusion that they wish
to draw from Dr. Kaltofen's report: "Dr. Kaltofen's conclusion can
be summarized in one sentence: 'Arkema's releases increased the
concentrations of chemical contaminants in the class area.'"
Arkema, for its part, contends that Dr. Kaltofen's opinions are
unreliable because he fails to properly attribute dioxins in the
putative class area to Arkema, fails to properly account for
alternative sources of dioxins, fails to reliably opine about the
resuspension of dioxins, and fails to properly opine on non-dioxin
constituents.
Nevertheless, Judge Allison finds Dr. Kaltofen's opinions
sufficiently relevant and reliable under Daubert. He says, some of
Dr. Kaltofen's opinions sit on the precipice of reliability.
Nevertheless, he ultimately finds that the Plaintiffs have
demonstrated that Dr. Kaltofen's opinions are sufficiently relevant
and reliable under Daubert. He therefore denies Arkema's Motion to
Exclude the Opinions of Dr. Kaltofen.
6. G. Arkema's Motion to Exclude Drs. Richard Troast and Charles
Werntz
Finally, Arkema lodges joint objections against the opinions
offered by Drs. Troast and Werntz. Because these two experts did
not file a joint report, Judge Allison first examines how their
opinions fit together before jumping into the Daubert issues. He
finds that the opinions of Drs. Troast and Werntz are sufficiently
relevant and reliable to clear the Daubert hurdle. He therefore
denies Arkema's Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Drs. Troast and
Werntz.
B. The Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification
With these Daubert rulings in hand, Judge Allison can turn to the
Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification. Ultimately, he
denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class but
grants their Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class.
1. Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Rule 23(b)(3) Damages Class
The Plaintiffs seek to certify a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3)
"for diminution of value determined by common formula and supported
by expert evidence. They seek to certify a class under Rule
23(b)(3) for claims of negligence, trespass, and public nuisance.
Judge Allison says the Plaintiffs have moved to certify a Rule
23(b)(3) damages class on common law claims of negligence,
trespass, and public nuisance. Excluding Dr. Kilpatrick's opinion
on diminution damages, however, pulls the rug out from under the
Plaintiffs' case. Without Dr. Kilpatrick's opinions, Judge Allison
cannot find that common issues predominate over complex
individualized issues regarding causation and damages. He therefore
denies the Plaintiffs' request for certification under Rule
23(b)(3).
2. Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Rule 23(b)(2) Injunctive-Relief
Class
To certify a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class, meanwhile, Plaintiffs
must demonstrate that "the party opposing the class has acted or
refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so
that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is
appropriate respecting the class as a whole." In the Fifth Circuit,
plaintiffs seeking Rule 23(b)(2) certification must meet three
requirements: (1) "class members must have been harmed in
essentially the same way"; (2) "injunctive relief must predominate
over monetary damage claims"; and (3) "the injunctive relief sought
must be specific." he class must also be cohesive.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class for two types
of injunctive relief: Property remediation and medical
surveillance.
Judge Allison grants this aspect of the Plaintiffs' Motion and
certifies a Rule 23(b)(2) class. Overall, he finds that, with
respect to the property remediation injunction, the Plaintiffs have
shown: (1) class members were harmed in essentially the same way
(and the class is sufficiently cohesive); (2) injunctive relief
predominates over monetary damage claims; and (3) the injunctive
relief sought is specific. In deciding whether to certify a class,
Judge Allison cannot shy away from delving into the merits of the
ultimate case. But Rule 23 is fundamentally procedural in nature.
It does not demand that the Court try the case or undertake a
summary judgment style review. Arkema will have the opportunity to
contest Plaintiffs' case on the merits. But the Court will not
transform certification into trial.
Based on the evidence currently in the record, Judge Allison finds
that certification of the Plaintiffs' requested Rule 23(b)(2)
injunctive-relief class for property remediation is warranted. He
therefore certifies class defined as "all residents and real
property owners located within a 7-mile radius of the Crosby,
Texas, Arkema Chemical Plant" under Rule 23(b)(2) to pursue the
property remediation relief outlined in the Plaintiffs' papers.
The Plaintiffs also request certification of an injunctive-relief
class for medical surveillance. They imagine that surveillance
"will consist of a flexible, court-administered program that will
study and assess the likely associated risks to human health posed
by the Arkema release." The Plaintiffs say that the program "will
develop a recurring health survey to look for disease development"
by engaging "an experienced epidemiologist."
Judge Allison finds that there is enough evidence in the record on
the Plaintiffs' request for medical surveillance to determine that
(1) class members were harmed in essentially the same way; (2)
injunctive relief predominates over monetary damage claims; and (3)
the injunctive relief sought is reasonably specific. He therefore
certifies a class defined as "all residents and real property
owners located within a 7-mile radius of the Crosby, Texas, Arkema
Chemical Plant" under Rule 23(b)(2) to pursue the medical
surveillance relief outlined in the Plaintiffs' papers.
3. Rules Enabling Act and Due Process Arguments
Finally, Arkema raises concerns related to the Rules Enabling Act
and Due Process Clause. Arkema contends that both of the
Plaintiffs' proposed injunctions "seek to require Arkema to fund an
investigation into whether any individual property or person was
harmed," which represents a "remedy-first, prooflater approach"
that "deprives Arkema of its right to challenge each plaintiff's
ability to prove liability."
Judge Allison disagrees: The Plaintiffs' proposed injunctions do
not run afoul of the Rules Enabling Act or the Due Process Clause.
He rejects Arkema's arguments against the Plaintiffs' proposed
property remediation injunction on the basis of the Rules Enabling
Act and Due Process Clause. He also sees no Rules Enabling Act or
Due Process Clause problems with the Plaintiffs' proposed medical
surveillance injunction.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons he set out, Judge Allison (i) denies the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Mr. Gary Papke and
Dr. Thomas Hamilton as moot; (ii) grants in part and denies in part
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Dr. Sheng Li;
(iii) grants Arkema's Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Dr. John
Kilpatrick; (iv) denies Arkema's Motion to Exclude the Opinions of
Mr. Marc Glass; (v) denies Arkema's Motion to Exclude the Opinions
of Dr. Marco Kaltofen; (vi) denies Arkema's Motion to Exclude the
Opinions of Drs. Richard Troast and Charles Werntz; and (vii)
denies the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification under
Rule 23(b)(3).
Judge Allison grants the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class
Certification under Rule 23(b)(2). The class is defined as follows:
"All residents and real property owners located within a 7-mile
radius of the Crosby, Texas, Arkema Chemical Plant." He appoints
Corey Prantil, Betty Whatley, Beverly Flannel, Roland Flannel,
Larry Anderson, and Tanya Anderson as the class representatives.
Judge Allison also grants the Plaintiffs' request to appoint class
counsel. He apoints Michael G. Stag and Ashley Liuzza and the law
firm of Stag Liuzza, LLC; Van Bunch and the law firm of Bonnett
Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, P.C.; Mark F. Underwood and the law
firm of Underwood Law Offices; and Kevin W. Thompson and the law
firm of Thompson Barney as the Co-Lead Class Counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 18, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3vj8r8wt from Leagle.com.
ASSET PROTECTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Ayala Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARMINDA AYALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASSET PROTECTION & SECURITY SERVICES, L.P.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00059 (S.D. Tex., May 23, 2022) is an
action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.
Plaintiff Ayala was employed by the Defendant as security
personnel.
ASSET PROTECTION & SECURITY SERVICES LP provides security guard
services. The Company offers services including physical security,
investigative services, training for in-house security teams,
research and consulting services, and electronic security. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
AVEDA LIFESTYLE: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aveda Lifestyle
Stores. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Aveda Lifestyle
Stores, Case No. 1:22-cv-03038 (E.D.N.Y., May 23, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Aveda Lifestyle Stores -- https://www.aveda.com/ -- offers high
performance hair products, skin care and body care.[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
BASHEN CORPORATION: Underpays Attorney Consultants, Phipps Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELISHA PHIPPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BASHEN CORPORATION and JANET BASHEN, in her
individual capacity, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-01716 (S.D. Tex.,
May 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure
to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated attorney
consultants overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Ms. Phipps began her employment as an attorney consultant with the
Defendants on or around June 21, 2021.
Bashen Corporation is a consulting firm headquartered in Houston,
Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Manley, Esq.
COVELER & PEELER, P.C.
820 Gessner, Suite 1710
Two Memorial City Plaza
Houston, TX 77024-8261
Telephone: (713) 984-8222
Facsimile: (713) 984-0670
E-mail: manley@coveler.com
BAYER AG: N.D. California Refuses to Toss Sheet Metal Workers Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHEET METAL WORKERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-04737-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California denies the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.
I. Introduction
The putative class action avers violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in relation to Bayer's acquisition of
Monsanto. The Court previously denied a motion to dismiss from
Bayer and the individual Defendants because the Plaintiffs had
stated a claim under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
but noted that the Plaintiffs could not proceed on all their
theories of liability.
After the Plaintiffs amended their complaint, seeking to remedy
shortcomings in one of their theories of liability, the Defendant
brought the motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).
II. Background
The Defendants previously moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First
Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC") for failure to plead
falsity, scienter, and loss causation. The alleged
misrepresentations in the FAC fell into three categories:
statements about Bayer's due diligence when acquiring Monsanto,
statements concerning the safety of glyphosate (the active
ingredient in Monsanto's herbicide product, Roundup), and the
accounting for legal risks related to Roundup.
On Oct. 19, 2021, the Court denied the motion to dismiss but noted
that although the Plaintiffs had adequately pled falsity and
scienter as to Bayer's due diligence efforts, they have not done so
as to statements concerning the safety of glyphosate and accounting
for legal risks related to Roundup and thus could not proceed on
those theories of liability without successfully amending their
complaint. On Nov. 15, 2021, the Defendants' motion for leave to
file a motion for reconsideration of the order on the motion to
dismiss was denied.
On Dec. 29, 2021, the Court granted the parties' stipulation for
the Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Class Complaint ("SAC"). The
Plaintiffs have reframed their theory of liability as to
misstatements concerning glyphosate safety as a theory that the
Defendants made material misrepresentations concerning the
evidentiary basis for Monsanto's science-based trial defenses in
the Roundup litigation. The Plaintiffs have removed allegations
concerning misrepresentations about Bayer's accounting for legal
risks related to Roundup and no longer seek to proceed on this
theory of liability.
On Jan. 31, 2022, the Defendants filed the motion to dismiss,
arguing the Plaintiffs have failed to plead misrepresentations
concerning the evidentiary basis for Monsanto's science-based trial
defenses.
III. Discussion
A. Falsity
Within the ambit of misrepresentations concerning the evidentiary
basis for Monsanto's science-based trial defenses, the Plaintiffs
aver that the Defendants made the following five types of
misstatements: (1) Defendants falsely told investors the defenses
were supported by over 800 studies; (2) the Defendants falsely
claimed a key agricultural study concerning Roundup does not cause
cancer and failed to inform investors of the study's shortcomings;
(3) the Defendants falsely claimed that the scientific evidence
clearly shows Roundup does not cause cancer; (4) the Defendants
falsely claimed that scientific evidence clearly showed that
Roundup was not more likely than glyphosate alone to cause cancer;
and (5) the Defendants misled investors about regulators' views on
glyphosate safety.
Judge Seeborg finds that the Plaintiffs (i) have not pled with
particularity misrepresentations concerning a key agricultural
study; (ii) have failed to plead with particularity
misrepresentations concerning the weight of the scientific
evidence; and (ii) have not adequately pled misstatements
concerning regulators' views.
B. Scienter
As the Plaintiffs have only adequately pled misrepresentations
concerning the safety risks of Roundup as opposed to glyphosate,
scienter is only addressed as to this category of misstatements. In
reaching the earlier conclusion that the Defendants made
misrepresentations that there was no difference in safety between
Roundup and glyphosate, the prior order relied on a 2002 internal
Monsanto email in which Monsanto's head of Product Safety Strategy
stated "glyphosate is OK but the formulated product (and thus the
surfactant) does the damage."
Although this email demonstrated that Monsanto employees were aware
that Roundup and Monsanto were not one and the same in terms of
their safety risks, Judge Seeborg holds that the Plaintiffs have
presented scant support for their arguments that statements Bayer
executives made in 2018 and later were made with "either
intentionally or with deliberate recklessness." Even if it was
possible that Bayer executives had access to the relevant emails,
possible access is not enough under Ninth Circuit's caselaw
concerning scienter, as Plaintiffs needed to allege facts to
explain why the relevant executives would have had actual access or
exposure to the information in the emails.
The Plaintiffs have therefore failed to "state with particularity
facts giving rise to a strong inference that the Defendant acted
with the required state of mind." Scienter is not established as to
misrepresentations concerning the differences in safety risks
between Roundup and glyphosate.
IV. Conclusion
Judge Seeborg concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead
the elements for a violation of Rule 10b-5 as to statements
concerning the evidentiary basis for Monsanto's science-based trial
defenses in the Roundup litigation. As the Court has previously
determined that the "Plaintiffs have adequately pled a violation of
the Exchange Act" based on another theory of liability, the motion
to dismiss is denied. The Plaintiffs, however, cannot proceed on
their theories of liability concerning statements about the
evidentiary basis for Monsanto's science-based trial defenses.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/42vj5fyt from Leagle.com.
BEAUTY FIX MEDSPA: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beauty Fix Medspa.
The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Beauty Fix Medspa, Case No.
1:22-cv-02970 (E.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
BeautyFix -- https://www.beautyfixmedspa.com/ -- is one of the best
NYC-based med spas that offer simple, safe, nonsurgical treatments
to help rejuvenate natural beauty, with no downtime.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
BELDEN INC: Deadline in Case Management Order Extended
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIA MACKEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BELDEN, INC.,
Case No. 4:21-cv-00149-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge John A. Ross
entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to extend
certain deadlines in case management order:
-- Amendment of pleadings and joinder October 25, 2021
of parties shall be filed no
later than:
-- The parties shall make all September 24, 2021
disclosures required by Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(a)(1) no later
than:
-- The Plaintiff shall disclose its September 1, 2022
merits experts and provide the
reports required by Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(a)(2) no later than:
-- The Defendant shall disclose its October 1, 2022
merits experts and provide the
reports required by Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(a)(2) no later than:
-- The Plaintiff shall file any May 31, 2022
Motion for Class Certification
no later than:
-- The Defendant shall file any June 29, 2022
response no later than:
-- The Plaintiff shall file any July 20, 2022
reply no later than:
Belden is an American manufacturer of networking, connectivity, and
cable products. The company designs, manufactures, and markets
signal transmission products for demanding applications.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NvBfrB at no extra charge.[CC]
BELMARK INC: Fails to Properly Pay Press Operators, Diamond Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT DIAMOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BELMARK INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00612-WCG (E.D. Wis., May 24, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and failure
to pay an agreed-upon wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a press operator from
April 2008 until May 13, 2022.
Belmark Inc. is a commercial printing company based in De Pere,
Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
CALIBER HOME: Baldwin Sues Over Non Payment of Real Property Tax
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMY BALDWIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02050-JPB-JKL (N.D., Ga., May 23, 2022) alleges
violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff obtained a mortgage loan
from Caliber (the "Caliber loan") to refinance an existing mortgage
on the Property located at 102 Hillcrest Avenue NE, Atlanta,
Georgia 30317.
The Caliber loan is an escrowed loan that requires the Plaintiff to
make estimated real estate tax payments to an escrow account owned
and controlled by Caliber, as servicer of the Caliber loan, to
remit to the appropriate taxing authorities. As a result of
Caliber's failure to timely remit the tax payment on the Property,
the City of Atlanta assessed more than $650 in late fees,
penalties, and interest, says the suit.
CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC. provides commercial finance services. The
Company offers home loans, refinance, consultancy, and military
lending services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Hoipkemier, Esq.
EPPS HOLLOWAY DELOACH & HOIPKEMIER, LLC
1220 Langford Drive Building 200-101
Watkinsville, GA 30677
Telephone: (706) 508-4000
Email: adam@ehdhlaw.com
CALIFORNIA: Pro Se Filings in Armstrong Suit to Be Given to Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al., Plaintiffs v. GAVIN C. NEWSOM,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 94-cv-02307 CW (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California orders the Clerk to forward pro se filings in the
case to the counsel of record for the class, and inform the inmate
by copy of the Order that it has done so.
The titled case is a class action, with attorneys representing the
class. The Court routinely receives pro se letters and other
requests by persons who may be members of the class. Because the
class in the action is represented by counsel, the members of the
class may file motions, requests, and letters only through their
counsel of record. Persons who are not members of the class may not
seek relief in the case.
Accordingly, with good cause appearing, Judge Wilken orders the
Clerk to forward pro se filings in the case to the counsel of
record for the class, namely Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, 101
Mission Street, 6th floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, and inform the
inmate by copy of the Order that it has done so.
The Court will not retain copies of the pro se attempted filings
that are forwarded to counsel. The counsel may return to the Court
any attempted filings that they believe require Court review and
are beyond the scope of the action or were filed by persons who are
not members of the class.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p969zek from Leagle.com.
CAREDX INC: Faces Plumbers Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL UNION No. 295 PENSION FUND,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
CAREDX, INC., REGINALD SEETO, ANKUR DHINGRA, MARCEL KONRAD, and
PETER MAAG, Case No. 3:22-cv-03023 (N.D. Cal., May 23, 2022) is a
federal securities class action on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased CareDx common stock between February 24,
2021, and May 5, 2022, inclusive against CareDx and certain of its
officers seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
During the Class Period, testing services for kidney and heart
transplant recipients was by far the Company's largest segment,
representing at least 85% of the Company's total 24 revenues since
the beginning of 2020. The Company's AlloSure (TM)blood test for
transplant recipients was, and is, the Company's primary source of
revenue.
The Company received a higher payment for testing services from
Medicare reimbursement than from commercial payers. As a result,
the number of tests for which the Company was able to get Medicare
reimbursement corresponded with the Company's reporting a higher
average sales price (ASP) for testing services. Although the
Company did not specifically report ASPs during the Class Period,
investors were able to easily calculate ASP by dividing testing
service revenue by the number or volume of reported tests per
financial reporting period, says the suit.
Throughout the Class Period, CareDx reported growing revenue and
strong demand in the Company's testing services segment. On
February 24, 2021, the first day of the Class Period, the
Defendants reported a 51% year-over-year increase in total revenue,
with testing services revenue increasing from $104.6 million in
2019 to $163.5 million in 2020. The Defendants instructed investors
9 during the Class Period that they "should be focused" on the
testing services segment. Defendants presented the testing services
segment as the Company's "growth driver" for which "demand
continued unabated." Moreover, Defendants described the Company's
testing services segment as having "a winning formula" that would
allow the Company to capture a massive total addressable market,
the suit alleges.
According to the complaint, investors further learned the impact of
Defendants' misconduct and the resulting government investigations
on CareDx's business prospects after the markets closed on May 5,
2022. In connection with the announcement of the Company's results
for the first quarter of 2022, the Defendants reported testing
service revenue that fell well short of analysts' expectations and
yet another decline in ASP in which the Company's average price
declined by approximately 4.9% versus the last quarter of 2021, or
what one analyst described as "another big deterioration in price."
In response to these disclosures, the price of CareDx stock
declined another 18.5% the following trading day, from a closing
price of $31.66 per share on May 5, 2022, to a closing price of
$25.87 per share on May 6, 2022.
As the market digested the disclosure of Defendants' misconduct,
more than $1 billion in shareholder value was erased. As a result
of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's common stock when the
truth was disclosed, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, added the suit.
CareDx is a diagnostics company that provides services and products
to the organ transplant recipient community, offering diagnostic
testing services, products, and digital healthcare software for
transplant patients and care providers. The information gathered
through the Company's surveillance and tests purportedly enables
clinicians to make treatment decisions in the event of signs of
organ rejection.[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
CARING FOR MONTANANS: Smith Suit Removed to D. Montana
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Victoria Smith, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Caring for Montanans, Inc. formerly
known as: Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Inc., Health
Service Care Corporation, John Does 1-10, Case No.
DV-56-02022-0000170-D was removed from MT 13th Judicial District
Court, Yellowstone Co. to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Montana on May 23, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00050-SPW-KLD to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.
Caring for Montanans, Inc. is a health maintenance organization.
The Organization provides health insurance coverage for
individuals, families, and groups.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jory C. Ruggiero, Esq.
Maxwell E. Kirchhoff, Esq.
WESTERN JUSTICE ASSOCIATES
303 West Mendenhall, Suite 1
Bozeman, MT 59715
Phone: (406) 587-1900
Fax: (406) 587-1901
Email: jory@westernjusticelaw.com
max@westernjusticelaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel J. Auerbach, Esq.
BROWNING KALECZYC BERRY & HOVEN, P.C. - MISSOULA
201 W. Railroad Street, Suite 300
Missoula, MT 59802
Phone: (406) 728-1694
Fax: (406) 728-5475
Email: daniel@bkbh.com
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Wright Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Marilee Wright, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02046-TWT-JCF (N.D. Ga., May 23,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Act.
Cavalry Portfolio Services --
https://www.cavalryportfolioservices.com/ -- is a debt collection
agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
THE OAKS FIRM
3895 Brookgreen Pt.
Decatur, GA 30034
Phone: (404) 500-7861
Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com
CITIZENS & NORTHERN: Court Dismisses Smith Suit With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITIZENS & NORTHERN CORPORATION
and CITIZENS & NORTHERN BANK, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-CV-01397
(M.D. Pa.), Judge Matthew W. Brann of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania grants the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Smith opened a savings account with Citizens & Northern,
fully aware that the Bank limited the number of savings account
withdrawals to six a month -- the Bank imposed a $2 fee on all
additional withdrawals. Now, Smith brings a putative class action
on behalf of all Citizens & Northern customers with savings
accounts, alleging that the Bank's assessment of these withdrawal
fees violates Federal Reserve Board Regulation D and therefore
constitutes a breach of contract and unlawful deceit.
II. Background
Defendant Citizens & Northern is a publicly traded bank holding
company located in Tioga County, Pennsylvania that provides banking
and lending services through its subsidiary, Defendant Citizens &
Northern Bank. Relevant in the case, Citizens & Northern's personal
banking clients have the option of opening a general savings
account, which the Bank calls a "C&N Key Savings" account. The
Citizens & Northern customer brochure details the general terms for
C&N Key Savings accounts.
On Jan. 7, 2020, Smith opened a C&N Key Savings account with
Citizens & Northern. Between January 2020 and June 2021, Citizens &
Northern charged Smith's C&N Key Savings account $236 for
withdrawals. But according to Smith, the Bank imposed the $2
withdrawal charge on all withdrawals that occurred after the
six-per-month limit without recognizing the distinction between
"convenient transfers" and "inconvenient transfers" included in the
Federal Reserve Board banking regulation known as "Regulation D."
After detailing the total number of withdrawals for each month
between January 2020 and June 2021, and categorizing the
withdrawals as either "convenient" or "inconvenient," Smith
concluded that Citizens & Northern charged his C&N Key Savings
account $216 in "improper fees."
On behalf of all Citizens & Northern personal banking customers
with C&N Key Savings accounts, Smith initiated the putative class
action lawsuit on Aug. 11, 2021. Citizens & Northern moved to
dismiss the initial Complaint, and Smith promptly filed an Amended
Complaint on Nov. 2, 2021, alleging breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and violations of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law. Citizens & Northern now asks the Court
to dismiss the Amended Complaint. That motion to dismiss has been
fully briefed and is ripe for disposition.
III. Analysis
The case presents a rather peculiar problem. Smith asserts that
Citizens & Northern breached its contracts with, and unjustly
enriched itself through its deception of, all customers with C&N
Key Savings accounts. But neither the purported breach nor the
alleged deception concerns any terms enumerated in Citizens &
Northern's customer agreements or any representations the Bank made
in its promotional materials. Indeed, Smith alleges that Citizens &
Northern did precisely what it said it would: Limit customers with
C&N Key Savings accounts to six withdrawals a month, with every
additional withdrawal subject to a $2 fee.
What, then, is the problem? According to Smith, Citizens &
Northern's contracts are subject to, and therefore fully
incorporate, Federal Reserve Board Regulation D, which Citizens &
Northern violated by "obfuscating and omitting the distinction
between convenient and inconvenient transfers" -- that is, by
assessing the $2 withdrawal charge on all withdrawals over six per
calendar month, rather than on only so-called "convenient
transfers."
Citizens & Northern responds that Regulation D, which concerns
"reserve requirements" for depository institutions, is not the
basis for its $2.00 withdrawal fee and "in no way prohibits or
limits its ability to charge a $2 fee on withdrawals." The Bank
argues that because Smith's claims "are entirely predicated on it
charging fees that purportedly violate Regulation D," dismissal is
appropriate because it did not, in fact, violate the regulation.
Judge Brann agrees with Citizens & Northern. He opines that when it
comes to savings account withdrawal fees, Citizens & Northern is
fully transparent with its customers: It charges $2 on all
withdrawals after six each calendar month. And nothing in Federal
Reserve Board Regulation D prevents Citizens & Northern from
assessing these withdrawal fees. Smith's arguments to the contrary
are simply incorrect.
IV. Conclusion
Because the legal deficiency goes to the heart of Smith's claims
and cannot be remedied with additional factual pleadings, Judge
Brann dismisses the Amended Complaint with prejudice.
An appropriate Order follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 18, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3asbparm from Leagle.com.
CLARIVATE PLC: Financial Statements Misled Investors, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien at Legal Newsline reports that the securities class
action firm Robbins Geller will likely lead litigation against
Clarivate PLC, an information services and analytics company
alleged to have misled shareholders during a preferred shares
offering.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Roanne Mann, of the Eastern District of New
York, granted the firm's motion to be appointed lead counsel on May
18. Objections must be filed by June 1 with Judge Allyne Ross by
June 1.
Robbins Geller represents a firefighters pension fund in Boynton
Beach, Fla., that bought 375,918 shares and suffered more than $4
million in losses, the firm says.
"The firm's resume lists multiple securities class action suits
filed in courts within the Second Circuit, as well as numerous
others brought in courts across the nation, in which Robbins Geller
has served as either lead or co-lead counsel," Mann wrote.
"No parties have offered any reason why Robbins Geller would be
ill-equipped to serve as lead counsel in this case. This Court
concludes, as have other courts in this Circuit, that based on the
firm's experience, Robbins Geller is qualified to serve as lead
counsel in securities class actions."
Robbins Geller's motion said it recovered more than $1.4 billion
for investors as sole lead counsel in securities class actions in
2020.
Clarivate went public in May 2019 and faces allegations its
financial statements misled investors because of mistakes in its
accounting.
In June, it raised $1.4 billion with a preferred shares offering
based on figures released in its quarterly reports.
"These statements were materially false and misleading," one of
three lawsuits against the company says. "In truth, Clarivate's
financial statement . . . violated generally accepted accounting
principles, the company maintained defective disclosure controls
and procedures as a result of material weakness in its internal
control over financial reporting, and the foregoing material
weakness was not limited to how the company accounted for
warrants."
On Dec. 27, Clarivate admitted to an error. It incorrectly recorded
as part of accounting for the acquisition of CPA Global about $185
million in equity awards, the suit says.
"To correctly amount for the equity awards, (generally accepted
accounting practices) recognized Clarivate to recognize the equity
awards expenses as stock-based compensations charges over the
vesting period from Oct. 1, 2020, to Oct. 1, 2021, with only a
portion of the liability recorded as part of the acquisition
accounting." [GN]
CLARIVATE PLC: Robbins Named Lead Counsel in Parot Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, KEVIN PAROT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. CLARIVATE PLC, RICHARD HANKS and
JERRE STEAD, Defendants, Case Nos. 22-cv-394 (ARR), 22-cv-1371
(ARR), 22-cv-1372 (ARR) (E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
issued a Memorandum and Order:
a. granting the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers'
motion for consolidation of three related actions; and
b. appointing the Pension Trust Fund as the Lead Plaintiff,
with its choice of counsel, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP as the Lead Counsel.
I. Background
On Jan. 24, 2022, Plaintiff Parot filed the instant putative class
action on behalf of investors who purchased publicly traded
securities of Clarivate during the period between Feb. 26, 2021 and
Dec. 27, 2021. The Parot Complaint alleges that Defendants
Clarivate, Richard Hanks and Jerre Stead violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 15 U.S.C. Sections
78j(b) and 78t(a), as amended by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"), and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5.
On March 11, 2022, a substantially similar action was filed in this
District under the Exchange Act, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System
v. Clarivate Plc et al., 22-CV-1372 (ARR) (the "ATRS action"),
against the same Defendants as in the instant action, but for a
slightly longer class period, between Feb. 26, 2021 and Feb. 2,
2022. The ATRS action also includes claims under the Securities Act
of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k, 77o,
against additional defendants, including Clarivate's Board of
Directors, Chief Accounting Officer, outside auditor, and
underwriters of Clarivate's offering of preferred shares.
Yet another related action was filed in this District on March 11,
2022, Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Clarivate plc,
22-cv-1371 (ARR), asserting the same Exchange Act claims against
the same defendants as in the instant action, but alleging an even
longer class period, between Nov. 10, 2020 and Feb. 2, 2022.
Clarivate is an information services and analytics company. Its
ordinary and preferred shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange.
On Oct. 1, 2020, Clarivate acquired CPA Global, an intellectual
property software and tech-enabled services company. Clarivate
repeatedly assured its investors that Clarivate's financial
statements were true and accurate in all material respects and that
its internal controls and procedures over financial reporting were
effective, while simultaneously issuing positive financial
guidance.
On Dec. 27, 2021, Clarivate disclosed in a filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that its financial statements
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2020, as well as for the quarterly
periods ended March 31, June 30, and Sept. 30, 2021, "should no
longer be relied upon because of an error in such financial
statements." The error was identified as follows: "In the affected
financial statements, certain awards made by CPA Global under its
equity plan were incorrectly included as part of the acquisition
for the CPA Global Transaction."
Also on Dec. 27, 2021, StreetInsider.com published an article
reporting that a "Stifel analyst lowered the price target on
Clarivate to $29 from ($32)" due to the disclosure of an accounting
error related to equity awards that CPA Global had issued under its
equity plan. The price of Clarivate common stock fell $0.16 per
share, or 0.65 percent, to $24.58 per share at the close of trading
on Dec. 27, 2021. The price of common stock continued to fall an
additional $1.70 per share, or 6.92%, to $22.88 on Dec. 28, 2021.
The Boynton Beach and ATRS actions further allege that thereafter,
on Feb. 3, 2022, Clarivate filed amendments to its annual report
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2020, and to its reports for the
quarters ended March 31, June 30 and Sept. 30, 2021, revealing
significant decreases in previously reported income from
operations, net income, and earnings per share. Clarivate also
disclosed that its net income for 2021 would be "significantly
below" its previously issued guidance due to the restated
financials. It further admitted that "material weaknesses in
internal control over financial reporting existed as of Dec. 31,
2020." Following the aforesaid news, Clarivate common stock and
preferred stock suffered significant further declines.
Two putative class members filed motions to consolidate the three
related actions, along with competing applications to appoint the
respective movant as lead plaintiff and approve its choice of class
counsel. One such movant, ATRS, thereafter filed a notice of
non-opposition to the Pension Trust Fund's motion for appointment
as lead plaintiff. Therefore, the motion of the Pension Trust Fund
stands unopposed.
II. Discussion
A. Notice Requirement and the Filing of Timely Motions
As an initial matter, the PSLRA requires that the plaintiff who
files the first action publish notice to the class within 20 days
of filing the action, in "a widely circulated national
business-oriented publication or wire service."
Based on the Jan. 24, 2022 publication date, the 60-day period in
which members of the putative class could move to serve as lead
plaintiff expired on March 25, 2022. Accordingly, having been filed
on March 25, 2022, Judge Mann holds that both of the pending
motions for appointment were timely filed with the Court.
B. Consolidation
In order "to avoid unnecessary cost or delay," a court may
consolidate multiple actions that "involve a common question of law
or fact." Notably, both movants, the Pension Trust Fund and ATRS,
have expressed support for consolidation, and no Defendant has
opposed it.
Based on her review of the complaints in the three actions, Judge
Mann concurs that these cases involve common questions of law and
fact. Specifically, the pleadings assert common causes of action
based on the same alleged deception and resulting loss, over a
similar period against common defendants, and seek similar relief.
Notably, the complaints marshal much of the same evidence in
describing Clarivate's deception and the revelations thereof. The
fact that the actions do not contain identical causes of action,
defendants, or the same class period "is not an obstacle to
consolidation." As she cannot discern any prejudice to any of the
defendants from consolidating these matters, and the substance of
the three complaints is largely overlapping, Judge Mann holds that
it is appropriate to consolidate them into a single case.
C. Appointment of Lead Plaintiff
The PSLRA directs the court to "appoint as lead plaintiff the
member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the court
determines to be most capable of adequately representing the
interests of class members".
Based on the record before the Court, Judge Mann finds that the
Pension Trust Fund is the movant that has the largest financial
interest: during the longest noticed class period of Nov. 10, 2020
through Feb. 2, 2022,5 the Pension Trust Fund is alleged to have
suffered losses totaling $9,794,384.46. ATRS suffered losses of
$7,101,403, less than the Pension Trust Fund's loss. Indeed, ATRS
concedes that it does not have the largest financial interest.
And, in the absence of any opposition, Judge Mann also finds that
the Pension Trust Fund has satisfied Rule 23(a)'s typicality and
adequacy requirements necessary to serve as lead plaintiff.
Moreover, the presumption that the Pension Trust Fund is the most
adequate plaintiff has not been rebutted by any evidence. Nothing
in the record rebuts the presumption that the Pension Trust Fund
would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, nor
is there any reason to believe that the Pension Trust Fund is
subject to any unique defense that would otherwise render it
incapable of adequately representing the class.
In sum, having the largest financial interest in the litigation,
and having otherwise made a preliminary showing of satisfying Rule
23's requirements, the Pension Trust Fund is entitled to a
rebuttable presumption. In the absence of any proof whatsoever --
let alone the requisite exacting proof -- to rebut the presumption
that it is the most adequate plaintiff, Judge Mann appoints the
Pension Trust Fund as the Lead Plaintiff.
D. Approval of Lead Counsel
The Pension Trust Fund has selected Robbins Geller as lead counsel
and seeks the Court's approval of that selection. In assessing a
plaintiff's selection and retention to represent a purported class,
courts give significant weight to counsel's experience.
Judge Mann finds that Robbins Geller has substantial experience
litigating securities fraud class actions. The Pension Trust Fund
refers the Court to the firm's website, which provides a detailed
description of the educational backgrounds and legal experience of
the attorneys at the firm. The firm's resume lists multiple
securities class action suits filed in courts within the Second
Circuit, as well as numerous others brought in courts across the
nation, in which Robbins Geller has served as either lead or
co-lead counsel. No parties have offered any reason why Robbins
Geller would be ill-equipped to serve as lead counsel in the case.
Judge Mann Court concludes, as have other courts in this Circuit,
that based on the firm's experience, Robbins Geller is qualified to
serve as lead counsel in securities class actions. Accordingly, she
approves the Pension Trust Fund's selection of Robbins Geller to
serve as the Lead Counsel.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons she set forth, Judge Mann consolidates the three
related cases, appoints the Pension Trust Fund as the Lead
Plaintiff, and approves Robbins Geller as the Lead Counsel. She
denies as moot ATRS' motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and
approval of lead counsel.
Any objection to the Memorandum and Order must be filed with the
Hon. Allyne R. Ross by June 1, 2022, or will be deemed waived. The
filing of an objection, without more, will not stay the Court's
Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 18, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3kwjzbfu from Leagle.com.
COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Class Action Over Unregistered Securities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Sloane at paymentsjournal.com reports that this article asks if
cryptocurrencies are more similar to stocks or to gold. I'd argue
they are more like diamonds where the supply is privately
controlled. Coinbase faces a class-action lawsuit that argues it is
dealing in unregistered securities, a position the SEC has also
signaled:
"U.S. laws impose meticulous regulations and burdensome disclosure
requirements on issuers and intermediaries that sell securities, a
category of assets that includes stocks and bonds. They also create
potentially crippling liabilities for anyone who skirts the law.
Cryptocurrency platforms have sought to minimize headaches by
arguing that the tokens they list in the U.S. are commodities, like
gold, which have no full-time federal regulator.
For trading venues that allow U.S. investors to buy and sell scores
of digital tokens, the cost of getting it wrong is potentially
catastrophic, industry lawyers say.
'If successful, plaintiffs would have this court effectively freeze
the accounts of innocent [Coinbase] users who, by their own choice,
transact with one another in these tokens," Coinbase attorneys
wrote in the motion to dismiss the case.'"
Coinbase indicates that the assets it holds could be forfeited in
bankruptcy which suggests that the owner of the asset is actually
Coinbase. [GN]
COINBASE GLOBAL: Feliz Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LENIN FELIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COINBASE GLOBAL INC., Defendant, Case No.
150209807 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 11th Jud. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., May 24,
2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's unlawful practice of sending
electronic mail communication to Florida consumers, including the
Plaintiff, between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM as part of its efforts to
collect debt.
Coinbase Global Inc. is an American company that operates a
cryptocurrency exchange platform, with its principal place of
business located in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (561) 542-8550
E-mail: jen@jibraellaw.com
jibrael@jibraellaw.com
COLORADO CORING: Snider Seeks Unpaid Wages for Construction Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS SNIDER, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. COLORADO CORING & CUTTING,
INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION AND RICK GONZALEZ, INDIVIDUALLY, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01289-RMR (D. Colo., May 24, 2022) alleges that the
Plaintiff consistently worked over 40 hours per week without
compensation at a rate of one and one-half his regular rate of pay
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado
Minimum and Pay Standards Order.
The Plaintiff, and members of the Plaintiff Class, only received
their regular, straight time hourly rates of pay for all hours
worked, including overtime-eligible hours in excess of 40 in a work
week. The Defendants are also presently withholding Plaintiff's
paycheck for wages earned in May 2022. The Defendants continue to
illegally withhold Plaintiff’s earned compensation, the lawsuit
says.
The Defendants compensated Plaintiff, and members of the Plaintiff
Class, on an hourly basis but failed to pay one-and one-half times
the employees' regular hourly rates of pay, added the suit.
The Plaintiff began working for Defendants as a construction worker
and laborer in December 2021. The Plaintiff remains employed by
Defendants as a construction worker.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
John William Billhorn, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
7900 E. Union Ave., Suite 1100
Denver, CO 80237
Telephone: (720)-386-9006
COMPASS FAMILY: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Compass Family
Services, et al. The case is styled as Carmen Jimenez Martinez, an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Compass Family Services, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
CGC22599767 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 23, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints (Class
Action Complaint For Other Employment)"
Compass Family Services -- https://www.compass-sf.org/ -- provide
an integrated system of housing, education, and employment
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Fails to Pay Interest on Late Payments
-------------------------------------------------------------
GILBERT BLEVINS, JR.; and ROBERT F. BLEVINS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONTINENTAL
RESOURCES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-00160-KEW (E.D. Ok.,
May 24, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant's willful and
ongoing violations of Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act
("PRSA") related to the payment of oil-and-gas production proceeds
to owners.
According to the complaint, the PRSA imposes automatic interest on
late payments. Compliance with the PRSA is not optional, and the
statute contains no demand requirement before an owner is entitled
to statutory interest. The Defendant knows it is bound by statute
to pay interest on late payments, but it has consistently ignored
these obligations and blatantly violated Oklahoma law, says the
suit.
The complaint further states that the Defendant does not
automatically pay interest on all late payments. Instead, it only
pays interest to owners who demand it. For these reasons, the
Plaintiffs file this class action against Defendant to obtain
relief for themselves and all other owners who received late
payments for which the Defendant did not pay interest as required
by the PRSA, added the suit.
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC. is a petroleum and natural gas
exploration and production company headquartered in Oklahoma City.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
431 W. Main Street, Suite D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 698-2770
Email: reagan@bradwil.com
ryan@bradwil.com
COTTAGES ON MOUNTAIN: Faces Woody Suit Over Overtime Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARGUERITE WOODY, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. COTTAGES ON MOUNTAIN CREEK, LLC, CREEKSIDE
SERVICES, LLC, BRIGHT PATH GPS, LLC, and CAROL JANE REYNOLDS, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02047-MHC (N.D. Ga., May 23, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants jointly operate assisted living homes that provide
24-hour residential support for individuals recovering from the
effects of mental health issues, as well as other addiction
disorders.
According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a common
policy of failing to pay Certified Nursing Assistants ("CNAs") at
time-and-a-half of their regular rate for hours worked in excess of
40 in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA's overtime provisions.
To the extent Defendants paid CNAs for hours worked in excess of 40
in a workweek, such pay was at the same rate of pay they received
for non-overtime hours. This violation is commonly known as a
straight time for overtime violation, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendants for actual and
liquidated damages on behalf of herself and the putative FLSA
Collective, plus costs and reasonable attorneys' fees
Marguerite Woody is an adult resident of Stockbridge, Georgia. The
Defendants employed Plaintiff Marguerite Woody in the position of
Certified Nursing Assistant ("CNA") from approximately July 2010 to
approximately November 2021. During her tenure, the Plaintiff
worked in Defendants 24/7 assisted living home located at 5815
Mountain Creek Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia.
The Defendant is an assisted living services provider assisting
clients who are recovering from the effects of mental health
issues, as well as co-occurring addition disorders.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roger Orlando, Esq.
THE ORLANDO FIRM, P.C.
315 West Ponce De Leon Ave, Suite
400, Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (973) 898-0404
E-mail: roger@orlandofirm.com
- and -
Edmund C. Celiesius, Esq.
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Pl, Suite 400
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
E-mail: ed.celiesius@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
CREDENCE RESOURCE: Goldstein Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credence Resource
Management LLC. The case is styled as Chana Goldstein, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Credence
Resource Management LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03027 (E.D.N.Y., May 23,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Credence Resource Management -- https://credencerm.com/ -- is a
debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
CVS HEALTH: Mier Appeals Class Certification Bid Denial
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Joseph Mier filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled JOSEPH MIER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CVS HEALTH, Rhode Island
corporation and CVS PHARMACY, INC., a Rhode Island corporation,
Case No. 8:20-cv-01979-DOC-ADS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Santa Ana.
The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' alleged deceptive sale of
alcohol-based hand-sanitizers.
According to the complaint, CVS printed on the bottles of its
hand-sanitizer a deceptive statement that the product kills 99.99%
of germs. The Plaintiff contends that as a result of the
Defendants' deceptive and misleading practices, he and the Class
Members were induced to purchase hand-sanitizer, which does not
perform as advertised.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge David O.
Carter entered an order on May 5, 2022, approving the Parties'
stipulation to vacate pretrial and trial deadlines as follows:
1) All pretrial deadlines and the trial date are vacated
pending resolution of Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class
Certification and for Appointment of Class Counsel,
Defendants' pending Motions to Exclude, and Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, Partial
Summary Judgment;
2) Within 14 days after the Court issues an order deciding
Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification and
Defendants' pending Motions to Exclude, Defendants shall
file a revised summary judgment motion or, alternatively,
inform Plaintiff's counsel and the Court that Defendants
do not intend to pursue a revised summary judgment motion;
and
3) Within 10 days after the Court issues an order deciding
Defendants' summary judgment motion, or 10 days after
Defendants inform Plaintiff's counsel and the Court that
Defendants do not intend to pursue a revised summary
judgment motion, the Parties shall meet and confer
regarding the scheduling order and submit a joint status
report proposing new pretrial and trial dates, if any.
On May 9, 2022, Judge Carter entered an Order granting in part and
denying in part Defendants' motions in limine to exclude expert Dr.
Jon A. Krosnick's testimony and denying Plaintiff's motion to
certify class.
The Plaintiff are now taking an appeal from Judge Carter's order.
The appellate case is captioned as Joseph Mier v. CVS Health, et
al., Case No. 22-80049, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 24, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner JOSEPH MIER, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Robert Dart, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Defendants-Respondents CVS HEALTH, a Rhode Island corporation, and
CVS PHARMACY, INC, a Rhode Island corporation, are represented by:
Anthony Anscombe, Esq.
Anthony Hopp, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP
227 W Monroe Street, Suite 4700
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 577-1265
- and -
Melanie Atswei Ayerh, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP
633 W 5th Street, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (480) 766-8827
- and -
Carol R. Brophy, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
1 Market Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 365-6724
- and -
William P. Cole, Esq.
AMIN TALATI WASSERMAN, LLP
515 S Flower Street
18th and 19th Floors
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 933-2330
Intervenor-Defendant-Respondent VI-JON, LLC is represented by:
Anthony Anscombe, Esq.
Anthony Hopp, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP
227 W Monroe Street, Suite 4700
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 577-1265
- and -
Melanie Atswei Ayerh, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP
633 W 5th Street, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (480) 766-8827
- and -
Carol R. Brophy, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
1 Market Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 365-6724
- and -
William P. Cole, Esq.
AMIN TALATI WASSERMAN, LLP
515 S Flower Street
18th and 19th Floors
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 933-2330
DEERE & CO: Monopolizes Repair Service Market, Deline Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD F. DELINE (d/b/a DELINE FARMS NORTH, DELINE FARMS SOUTH, and
DELINE FARMS PARTNERSHIP), individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DEERE & CO. (d/b/a JOHN DEERE),
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-50171 (N.D. Ill., May 25, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for violation of Sections 1 and
2 of the Sherman Act, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged monopolization of the
repair service market for John Deere brand agricultural equipment
with onboard central computers known as engine control units
(ECUs). John Deere has deliberately monopolized the market for
repair and maintenance services of its agricultural equipment with
ECUs by making crucial software and repair tools inaccessible to
farmers and independent repair shops. Furthermore, John Deere's
network of highly-consolidated independent dealerships is not
permitted through their agreements with John Deere to provide
farmers or repair shops with access to the same software and repair
tools the dealerships have. As a result of the Defendant's
monopolization, John Deere and its dealerships have derived
supracompetitive profits from the sale of repair and maintenance
services, the suit alleges.
Deere & Co., doing business as John Deere, is an agricultural
equipment manufacturer, headquartered in Moline, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq.
Edward A. Khatskin, Esq.
Alexander J. Sweatman, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
E-mail: jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com
ekhatskin@caffertyclobes.com
asweatman@caffertyclobes.com
- and –
Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
205 N. Monroe Street
Media, PA 19063
Telephone: (215) 864-2800
E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com
DESE ENTERPRISE: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dese Enterprise, Inc.
The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Dese Enterprise, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04137 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dese Enterprise, Inc. was founded in 2007. The Company's line of
business includes the retail sale of products by television,
catalog, and mail-order.[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
DEUTSCHE BANK: Court Narrows Claims in Karimi's 2nd Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALI KARIMI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. DEUTSCHE BANK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,
JOHN CRYAN, CHRISTIAN SEWING, MARCUS SCHENCK, and JAMES VON MOLTKE,
Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-2854 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jed S.
Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint.
The Defendants' motion to dismiss was fully briefed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey before Judge Salas
granted the Defendants' motion to transfer the action to the
Southern District of New York. Now, having carefully reviewed the
motion papers and with the benefit of oral argument from counsel,
Judge Rakoff issues this bottom-line order granting in part and
denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. A full opinion
setting forth the Court's reasoning will follow the Order in due
course.
Specifically, the motion to dismiss is granted only with respect to
the Chief Financial Officer Defendants: Marcus Schenck and James
Von Moltke. The motion to dismiss is denied in all other respects.
Discovery in the matter was automatically stayed pending decision
on the motion to dismiss, pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act. That stay is terminated. The parties are
directed to jointly complete a proposed case management plan, using
the template Form D on the Court's website and a ready for trial
date of six months from the date of the Order. Within one week of
the Order, the counsel will jointly email the proposed case
management plan to the Chambers email address listed in the Court's
individual rules.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3jj5hucv from Leagle.com.
DIVER'S SUPPLY: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diver's Supply, Inc.
The case is styled as Rafael Cordero, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Diver's Supply, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04250 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Diver's Supply, Inc. -- https://www.diverssupplyinc.com/ -- offer
scuba gear, snorkeling equipment and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
DRC GROUP INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anacacy Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE ANACACY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated in Plaintiff v. DRC GROUP, INC.; BEVERAGE CONTAINER
RECYCLING CORPORATION; GARD RECYCLING, INC.; ALEX DOLJANSKY;
MICHAEL VAITZMAN; AND GUSTAVO "DOE", Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-04239 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2022) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Anacacy was employed by the Defendants as warehouse
employee.
DRC GROUP INC. operates a recycling facilities in Bronx, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com
DRUVE ENTERPRISES: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Druve Enterprises,
Inc. The case is styled as Rafael Cordero, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Druve Enterprises, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04281 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Druve Enterprises, Inc. is a corporation located in Naperville,
Illinois.[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
DSE HOCKEY CLUB: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DSE Hockey Club, L.P.
The case is styled as Kevin Davis, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DSE Hockey Club, L.P., Case No.
1:22-cv-04272 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
DSE Hockey Club, L.P. -- https://www.dsehc.com/ -- operates and
promotes professional and semi-professional athletic clubs and
events.[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
EDGEWATER POWER: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edgewater Power
Boats, LLC. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Edgewater Power
Boats, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04186-ER (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
EdgeWater Boats -- https://www.ewboats.com/ -- manufactures
high-quality center console boats for fishing and families, luxury
yachts, and family-friendly dual consoles.[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
EIGHT ORANGES: Mangahas Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eight Oranges Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Jessy Mangahas, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Eight Oranges Inc. d/b/a The
Bao, Chibaola Inc. d/b/a Uluh, Joanne Hong Bao, Case No.
1:22-cv-04150 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Eight Oranges Inc. doing business as The Bao --
https://www.thebaony.com/ -- is a chic eatery known for
Shanghai-style xiao long bao soup dumplings with classic & creative
fillings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER LLP
28 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 300-0375
Fax: (212) 481-1333
Email: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com
EISENBERG LOGISTICS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Coffin Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THERESA COFFIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EISENBERG LOGISTICS GREENSBORO, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-21579 (M.D.N.C., May 24, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, failure to pay
wages at separation under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, and
breach of contract.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a delivery driver from
February 2021 to January 2022.
Eisenberg Logistics Greensboro, Inc. is a company that operates a
package pickup and delivery business in North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
Corey M. Stanton, Esq.
GIBBONS LAW GROUP, PLLC
14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Suite 325
Charlotte, NC 28277
Telephone: (704) 612-0038
E-mail: phil@gibbonslg.com
corey@gibbonslg.com
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Cordero Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL CORDERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELECTRONIC ARTS INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-04282 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website, origin.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) the screen reader
fails to successfully navigate the website when clicking tab, (b)
the screen reader fails to read the item description link when
selected, and (c) the screen reader fails to read the item price,
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.
Electronic Arts Inc. is an online retail company doing business in
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
Jarrett S. Charo, Esq.
William J. Downes, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 595-6200
Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
wdownes@mizrahikroub.com
ENSERVCO CORP: Faces Saee Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALI SAEE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ENSERVCO CORPORATION, RICHARD A. MURPHY, and MARJORIE
A. HARGRAVE, Case No. 1:22-cv-01267 (D. Colo., May 20, 2022) is a
federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Enservco securities between May 13, 2021 and
April 18, 2022, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
Enservco, through its subsidiaries, provides well enhancement and
fluid management services to the onshore oil and natural gas
industry in the U.S.
Recently, the Company has employed several tactics in an apparent
effort to strengthen its balance sheets. For example, in August
2020, Enservco's Board of Directors approved a transaction to,
inter alia, exchange 50% of the Company's subordinated debt with
Cross River Partners, L.P. Moreover, during the second quarter of
2021, Enservco amended payroll tax returns originally filed for the
third and fourth quarters of 2020 to claim refundable Employee
Retention Credits for those periods.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that Enservco had defective disclosure controls and procedures and
internal control over financial reporting, says the suit.
On March 28, 2022, Enservco disclosed in an SEC filing that it had
"concluded that the Company's previously issued condensed
consolidated financial statements as of and for the quarters ended
March 31, 2021, June 30, 2021 and September 30, 2021. The Company
further advised that it had "misinterpret[ed the] eligibility for
certain employee retention tax credits under relevant provisions of
the [CARES Act]" and would "amend its ERCs are a type of tax credit
provided for under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act (the CARES Act). Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for
the Relevant Periods to reflect restatements of its condensed
consolidated financial statements for the Relevant Periods.
On this news, Enservco's stock price fell $0.45 per share, or
12.3%, to close at $3.21 per share on March 28, 2022.
On March 31, 2022, Enservco disclosed in an SEC filing that it
could not timely file the Company's annual report on Form 10-K with
the SEC for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2021 because
the Company was “in the process of restating [its] financial
statements and preparing amendments to its Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q filings for the Relevant Periods, which must be completed
prior to the completion and filing of the [Company]'s Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2021."
On this news, Enservco's stock price fell $0.21 per share, or
7.78%, to close at $2.49 per share on April 1, 2022.
On April 4, 2022, Enservco disclosed in an SEC filing that its
Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Defendant Marjorie A. Hargrave, "is
departing the Company and will no longer be an executive officer
and employee of the Company effective April 22, 2022."
On this news, Enservco's stock price fell $0.19 per share, or
7.48%, to close at $2.35 per share on April 5, 2022.
On April 11, 2022, Enservco filed amended quarterly reports with
the SEC for the Relevant Periods, each of which reported adjusted
net losses that increased, and adjusted other income that
decreased, significantly for their respective periods.
Then, on April 18, 2022, Enservco disclosed in an SEC filing that
the Company "will not be filing its Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021 within the 15 day extension period provided
by the Company's 12b-25 filing" because it "intends to [again]
amend its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the Relevant Periods
to reflect restatements of its condensed consolidated financial
statements for the Relevant Periods."
On this news, Enservco's stock price fell $0.38 per share, or
10.47%, to close at $3.25 per share on April 19, 2022, the suit
alleges.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, added the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Brian Schall, Esq.
THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 303-1964
E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com
ENVIOS ESPINOZA: Fails to Pay Employees' OT Wages, Zambrano Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA ZAMBRANO and YISELA JARAMILLO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ENVIOS ESPINOZA, INC., ENVIOS
ESPINOZA TELEFONICA MULTISERVICES CORP. D/B/A ENVIOS ESPINOZA, JOHN
DOE CORPORATION No. 1 D/B/A ENVIOS ESPINOZA ENTERPRISES, JOHN DOE
CORPORATION No. 2 D/B/A ENVIOS ESPINOZA & CO., JULIO ESPINOZA,
FAUSTO CANDO, and DORIS CANDO, Case No. 1:22-cv-03031 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 23, 2022) seeks equitable and legal relief for the Defendants'
violations of the Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Laws.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have intentionally,
willfully, and repeatedly harmed Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs by engaging in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of
violating the FLSA. This policy and pattern or practice includes,
failing to pay employees their overtime rates. The Defendants have
engaged in their unlawful conduct pursuant to a corporate policy of
minimizing labor costs and denying employees compensation, the
lawsuit says.
The Defendants employed Zambrano as a cashier from in or around
October 2006 until on or around March 29, 2021. As a cashier,
Zambrano's primary job duties included operating the cash register,
attending clients, answering phones, and preparing documents for
shipping.
Throughout her employment with Defendants, Zambrano worked at the
Coram Location. From in or around October 2006 until in or around
March 2020, Zambrano regularly worked five days per week, as
follows: Mondays and Wednesdays through Saturdays from
approximately 9:00 a.m. to approximately 9:00 p.m., without any
meal or rest breaks, for a total of 60 hours per week, added the
suit.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eliseo Cabrera, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
370 Lexington Ave., Suite 1512
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 460-0047
Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
E-mail: edcabrera@katzmelinger.com
EXECUTIVE LE SOLEIL: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Nunez Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXECUTIVE LE SOLEIL NEW YORK, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04262 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2022) brings
this class action complaint against the Defendant to recover
damages for delinquent wage payments pursuant to New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt,
hourly-paid manual laborer from August 2015 until May 26, 2016 at
Le Soleil.
The Plaintiff asserts claim that throughout his employment with the
Defendant, the Defendant failed to pay him timely wages. Although
the Defendant was not authorized by the New York State Department
of Labor Commissioner to compensate its employees who qualified as
manual laborers on a semi-monthly basis, the Defendant compensated
him and all its employees on a semi-monthly basis since October 8,
2015 and continuing through the present regardless of whether said
employees qualified as manual laborers under the NYLL.
Executive Le Soleil New York, LLC operates a hotel. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Tel: (516) 873-9550
FAMOUS BRANDS: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Famous Brands, Inc.
The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Famous Brands, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04143 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Famous Brands International -- https://www.famousbrandsintl.com/ --
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:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
FAST 6 OF AMERICA: Moreira Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janeth Moreira, and other similarly situated individuals v. Fast 6
Of America Nationwide Services Inc, and Margarita Trutt,
individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-21578 (S.D. Fla., May 20, 2022)
seeks to recover money damages for unpaid regular and overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40
hours every week but she was not compensated for overtime hours as
required by law. The Plaintiff clocked in and out using MediRoutes
software, and Defendants were in complete control of Plaintiff's
schedule. The Defendants could track the number of hours worked by
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals. Therefore,
Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wages and
overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half her regular rate
for every hour that she worked, the lawsuit says.
Fast 6 is a Florida corporation having its place of business in
Dade County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beanland Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DARREN BEANLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00672-UNA (D. Del., May 23, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act.
The Plaintiff in the complaint seeks a declaration that FedEx
violated USERRA by failing to provide Class Members with pay during
their short-term military leave on an equivalent basis to other
comparable forms of leave; an order requiring FedEx to pay
servicemembers on short-term military leave on an equivalent basis
to other comparable forms of leave; and an order requiring FedEx to
recalculate and pay compensation to Plaintiff and other members of
the Class consistent with the requirements of USERRA.
Plaintiff Beanland was employed by the Defendant as aircraft
maintenance technician.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION provides courier delivery services. The
Company focuses on supply chain transportation, logistics,
packaging, and ancillary clearance services. Federal Express serves
customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan Cook, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
3801 Kennett Pike, Ste. C-305
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 499-3601
Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
Email: nathan@blockleviton.com
- and -
R. JR. Joseph Barton, Esq.
Colin M. Downes, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
1633 Connecticut Ave., NW, Ste. 200
Washington D.C. 20009
Telephone: (202) 734-7046
Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
Email: jbarton@blockleviton.com
colin@blockleviton.com
- and -
Michael J. Scimone, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, New York 10017
Telephone (212) 245-1000
Email: mscimone@outtengolden.com
- and -
Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq.
Robert D. Friedman, Esq.
GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
2001 K Street NW, Suite 850
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 888-1741
Email: peter@guptawessler.com
- and -
Matthew Z. Crotty, Esq.
CROTTY & SON LAW FIRM, PLLC
905 W. Riverside Ave. Suite 404
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (509) 850-7011
Email: matt@crottyandson.com
- and -
Thomas G. Jarrard, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS G. JARRARD LLC
1020 N. Washington St.
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (425) 239-7290
Email: Tjarrard@att.net
FERMENTED SCIENCES: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fermented Sciences
II, Inc. The case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fermented Sciences II,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04175 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Fermented Sciences makes handcrafted organic hard kombucha products
called Flying Embers.[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
FIAT CHRYSLER: Bagley Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles (FCA) US, LLC. The case is styled as Erika Bagley,
James Bagley, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) US, LLC, Case
No. 5:22-cv-01797-JFL (E.D. Pa., May 10, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Property: Prop. Damage
Prod. Liability.
Fiat Chrysler -- http://www.chrysler.com/-- is one of the "Big
Three" automobile manufacturers in the United States, headquartered
in Auburn Hills, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles E Schaffer, Esq.
David C. Magagna, Jr., Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Stewart FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Demarcus Stewart, individually, and on behalf of
all other similarly situated consumers v. First Advantage
Background Services Corp., Case No. 22CV397050 was removed from the
Santa Clara County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on May 20, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-02998 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
First Advantage -- https://fadv.com/ -- is a global consumer
reporting agency headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew More McNaught, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 397-2823
Fax: (415) 397-8549
Email: amcnaught@seyfarth.com
FIRST ORDER: Peacock Class Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Peacock, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. First Order Pizza, LLC; Ty Turner; James Holmes; Doe
Corporation 1-10; and John Doe 1-10, Case No. 2:22-cv-02315 (W.D.
Tenn., May 20, 2022) seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and
equitable relief based on Defendants' willful failure to compensate
Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and for unjust
enrichment.
The Defendants allegedly violated the FLSA by failing to adequately
reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses,
thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated
minimum wages for all hours worked.
All delivery drivers at the Defendants' Domino’s stores,
including Plaintiff, have been subject to the same or similar
employment policies and practices, the lawsuit says.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
- and -
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Riley E. Kane, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE , LLC
8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 202-0710
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
rkane@billerkimble.com
www.billerkimble.com
FOREST RIVER: Nelson Files Suit in D. Montana
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forest River, Inc.
The case is styled as Jay Nelson, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. Forest River, Inc., Does 1-25, Case No.
4:22-cv-00049-BMM-JTJ (D. Mont., May 23, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Contract Default.
Forest River Inc. -- https://www.forestriverinc.com/ -- is an
American manufacturer of recreational vehicles, cargo trailers,
utility trailers, pontoon boats, and buses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel B. Bidegaray, Esq.
BIDEGARAY LAW FIRM
1700 West Koch, Ste. 5, Suite 305
Bozeman, MT 59715
Phone: (406) 522-7744
Fax: (406) 534-7629
Email: daniel@bidegaraylawfirm.com
- and -
Dennis Connor, Esq.
Gregory Pinski, Esq.
PO Box 3028
Great Falls, MT 59403
Phone: (406) 727-3550
Fax: (406) 727-1640
Email: dennis@mttrials.com
greg@mttrials.com
FORWARD FOODS: Faces Provenzano Suit Over Mislabeled Protein Bars
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SALVATORE PROVENZANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FORWARD FOODS, LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-04148
(S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022) is a putative class action lawsuit on
behalf of purchasers of Forward Foods LLC's Detour Lean Muscle
Cookie Dough Caramel Crisp protein bars and Detour Lean Muscle
Peanut Butter Chocolate Crunch protein bars.
The Defendant markets and sells the Bars as "lean muscle" protein
bars to impress upon the public that its products contain less fat,
fatty acid, or cholesterol than its competitors. However, the Bars
do not comply with 21 C.F.R. 101.62(e) and therefore do not meet
such warranties. In fact, Defendant fortifies its Lean Muscle Bars
with palm kernel, sunflower and flax oils, considerable sources of
fat. Therefore, Defendant has no basis to label its Bars as "lean,"
says the suit.
Many health-conscious consumers actively seek out low-fat food
products with a high protein content because they believe it will
assist with muscle gain or fat loss. Additionally, many consumers
avoid food products with high fat content due to health reasons,
such as heart disease or high blood pressure. Almost all of
Defendant's competitors produce protein bars with the same, if not
lower, fat and cholesterol levels. However, contrary to Defendant's
representation, the Bars do not contain any less fat than similar
"non-lean" protein bars on the market. Accordingly, the Bars are
not lean because they do not contain any less fat than other
traditional protein bars, the suit asserts.
As such, the Defendant allegedly engaged in widespread false and
deceptive advertising on its Bars by claiming the Bars are "lean."
Every package of the Bars prominently features the words "Lean
Muscle."
Forward Foods LLC sells, manufactures, and markets its Bars, which
are sold as "lean muscle bars." On the front of the Bars'
packaging, the Bars are touted as being "lean."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
Zoe Aaron, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nicksuciu@milberg.com
zaaron@milberg.com
FOTO BOYZ: Servidio Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
MELANIE A. SERVIDIO, and other similarly situated individuals v.
FOTO BOYZ INC., PAW EQUITY HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a FOTOBOYZEVENTS. COM
PHILIP WEXLER, and MICHAEL WEXLER, individually, Case No.
9:22-cv-80775 (S.D. Fla., May 23, 2022) is an action to recover
money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly
situated to Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours during one or
more weeks on or after October 2019 without being compensated, the
lawsuit says.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
GARNET & GOLD: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Garnet & Gold, Inc.
The case is styled as Kevin Davis, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Garnet & Gold, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04274 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Garnet & Gold, Inc. -- https://www.garnetandgold.com/ -- is an
apparel & fashion company based out in Tallahassee, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
GOFUND LLC: Avatgarde Sues Over Improper Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
AVANTGARDE SENIOR LIVING d/b/a AVANTGARDE SENIOR LIVING OF TARZANA;
and JASON ADELMAN, individually and on behalf of all of those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOFUND, LLC d/b/a PENN CAPITAL
FUNDING; MAPCAP FUNDING, LLC; MIRIAM DEUTSCH; MOSHE KATZ; and JOSEF
BREZEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04313-JMF (S.D.N.Y., May 25,
2022) is a class action against merchant cash advance ("MCA")
companies that are controlled and manipulated by Defendants to
carry out a fraudulent scheme to collect upon unlawful debts and
otherwise fraudulently obtain funds from the Plaintiffs and
hundreds of other similarly situated victims.
According to the complaint, the Defendants operate out of New York
but abuse an apparent loophole under Connecticut procedural law to
collect upon their unlawful debts. In doing so, Defendants freeze
out-of-state bank accounts by simply serving legal papers, which
have not been reviewed or scrutinized by any court, on a bank that
has a branch located in Connecticut. As justification for their
bank freezes, the Defendants represent and attest under oath that
their small business victims owe them a debt and that Defendants
are unaware of any defenses to their claims, says the suit.
The result of this tactic is often catastrophic because the
Defendants can freeze out-of-state bank accounts without any notice
whatsoever. Once frozen, the Defendants can then extort payment
under duress due to their victims' need to save payroll or pay
other necessary business expenses, such as insurance, taxes, rent
and inventory. This tactic is especially harsh because even when
the small business victim capitulates to the Defendant's
extortionate demands, it is often too late because the release of
those bank accounts may take days to unfreeze due to the processing
delays and procedural constraints of individual banks and their
levy departments, added the suit.
GOFUND, LLC d/b/a PENN CAPITAL FUNDING is an investment management
company providing balance sheet research and evaluation management
solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shane R. Heskin, Esq.
WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 244-9500
Facsimile: (215) 864-6329
Email: heskins@whiteandwilliams.com
GOLD COUNTRY: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gold Country, Inc.
The case is styled as Kevin Davis, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Gold Country, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04275 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gold Country -- https://www.goldcountry.com/ -- is a trusted source
for classic Minnesota sportswear for over 30 years.[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
GOOGLE LLC: Walkingeagle Sues Over Auto Renewal of YT Subscriptions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR WALKINGEAGLE and NATHAN BRIGGS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC, d/b/a
YOUTUBE, and YOUTUBE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00763-SB
(D. Ore., May 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of Oregon's Automatic Renewal Law and Oregon's
Unlawful Trade Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged engagement in an
illegal automatic renewal scheme with respect to their subscription
plans for YouTube (YT) branded products and services that are
available exclusively to consumers who enroll in their auto-renewal
membership programs. When consumers sign up for the YT
Subscriptions, the Defendants actually enroll them in a program
that automatically renews their YT Subscriptions from
month-to-month or year-to-year and results in monthly or annual
charges to their credit card, debit card, or third-party payment
accounts. In doing so, the Defendants fail to provide the requisite
disclosures and authorizations required to be made to consumers
under Oregon law, says the suit.
Google LLC is an American multinational technology company, with
its principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway,
Mountain View, California.
YouTube, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Google LLC, with its
principal place of business at 901 Cherry Avenue, San Bruno,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stanton R. Gallegos, Esq.
MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC
1455 SW Broadway, Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97201
Telephone: (503) 295-3085
E-mail: StantonGallegos@MarkowitzHerbold.com
- and –
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Julia K. Venditti, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
jvenditti@bursor.com
- and –
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
fklorczyk@bursor.com
HIGHWAVE INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Highwave, Inc. The
case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Highwave, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04203 (S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Highwave -- https://highwave.com/ -- creates travel mugs to help
humans live in harmony with our planet since 1983.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
HIVE BRANDS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hive Brands Holdings,
Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Hive
Brands Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04204 (S.D.N.Y., May 23,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hive Brands -- https://hivebrands.com/ -- is an online marketplace
of great natural and organic products while doing good for the
world, offering fast and free carbon neutral shipping.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
HOLY GRAIL: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Holy Grail Provisions
LLC. The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Holy
Grail Provisions LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03012 (E.D.N.Y., May 23,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Holy Grail Provisions LLC -- http://www.holygrailsteak.com/-- is
located in San Francisco, California and is part of the Electronic
Shopping and Mail-Order Houses Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
HSN INC: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HSN, Inc. The case is
styled as Christopher Loadholt, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. HSN, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04231 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 23, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
HSN -- https://www.hsn.com/ -- an initialism of its former name
Home Shopping Network, is an American free-to-air television
network owned by the Qurate Retail Group, which also owns catalog
company Cornerstone Brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Short Suit Transferred to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Linda Short, Olivia Parker, Elizabeth Snider,
James Twigger, Seane Ronfeldt, Anthony DiPardo, Jennifer DiPardo,
Chad Perry, William Pressley, Jeanett Smith, Brian Frazier,
Gabrielle Alexander, Tavish Carduff, Janell Wight, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Hyundai Motor
America Inc., Hyndai Motor Company, Kia Motors America Inc., Kia
Motors Corporation, Kia Corporation, Kia America, Inc., Case No.
2:19-cv-00318 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on May 23, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-03498-FLA-JPR to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.
Hyundai Motor America -- https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en -- is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Hyundai Motor Company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
Jonathan D. Boggs, Esq.
BAILEY AND GLASSER LLP
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: (304) 345-6555
Fax: (304) 342-1110
Email: bbailey@baileyglasser.com
jboggs@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
Maxwell H. Goins, Esq.
Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
Adele Daniel, Esq.
Rachel E. Morowitz, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK LLP (WA)
1201 Third Avenue Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101-3052
Phone: (206) 623-1900
Fax: (206) 623-3384
Email: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
mgoins@kellerrohrback.com
rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com
adaniel@kellerrohrback.com
rmorowitz@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
James Mitchell Williams, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS AND MILES PC
218 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Phone: (334) 269-2343
Fax: (334) 954-7555
Email: clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com
mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com
- and -
Leslie Pescia, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS AND MILES PC
PO Box 4160
Montgomery, AL 36103
Phone: (334) 269-2343
Fax: (334) 954-7555
Email: leslie.pescia@beasleyallen.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Christine Weijia Chen, Esq.
Kari Wohlschlege, Esq.
Patrick T. Burns, Esq.
Tina Lo, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART AND SULLIVAN LLP
50 California Street 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 875-6600
Fax: (415) 875-6700
Email: christinechen@quinnemanuel.com
kariwohlschlegel@quinnemanuel.com
patrickburns@quinnemanuel.com
tinalo@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Cristina Henriquez, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP (REDWD SHORES)
555 Twin Dolphin Dr., Ste. 560
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Phone: (650) 801-5000
Email: cristinahenriquez@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Shon Morgan, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART AND SULLIVAN LLP
865 South Figueroa Street 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
Phone: (213) 443-3000
Fax: (213) 443-3100
Email: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
Gavin K Snyder, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP (WA)
1109 First Ave., Ste. 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 905-7000
Fax: (206) 905-7100
Email: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
gavinsnyder@quinnemanuel.com
INJURED WORKERS: Fails to Timely Detect Data Breach, Webb Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXSIS WEBB and MARSCLETTE CHARLEY, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. INJURED WORKERS PHARMACY, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-10797 (D. Mass., May 24, 2022) alleges that IWP
failed to timely detect and report the Data Breach has made its
patients vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to
monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent
unauthorized use of their personally identifiable information.
In January 2021, IWP, a home delivery pharmacy service, lost
control over 75,700 patients' highly sensitive personal records in
a data breach by cybercriminals ("Data Breach").
As evidenced by the Data Breach carrying on undetected for four
months, IWP had no means to discover and prevent data breaches from
happening -- allowing hackers to pilfer patients' sensitive
information.
In May 2021 -- after IWP finally discovered the breach -- IWP did
not immediately warn or notify its patients that hackers had
accessed their highly sensitive data. Instead, IWP initiated a
seven month "investigation," denying patients an opportunity to
proactively mitigate the Data Breach's impact on them. In that
time, IWP also rushed to implement new data security safeguards,
requiring its employees "to complete IT security training" and
implement "reasonable physical, technical, and administrative
safeguards" -- safeguards that should have been in place before the
Data Breach. Indeed, following the Data Breach, IWP developed an
"Ethics & Compliance Statement" for its workforce, designating
"Data Privacy and Security" as one of its six "core values," says
the suit.
After IWP's "investigation" inexplicably dragged on for seven
months, IWP finally disclosed the Data Breach to its patients. But
in its Breach Notice, IWP downplayed the Data Breach’s severity
and the threat it posed to patients, claiming it had "no indication
that [patient] information has been misused in relation to this
event," even though cybercriminals had unfettered access to patient
information for four months. Indeed, IWP did not start notifying
victims of the Data Breach until February 3, 2022 -- nearly nine
months after IWP first discovered the Data Breach and almost
thirteen months after the Data Breach happened, added the suit.
The complaint further alleges that the Plaintiffs and members of
the proposed Class trusted Defendant with their PII. But Defendant
betrayed that trust. Defendant failed to properly use up-to-date
security practices to prevent the Data Breach. Defendant’s
failure to detect the Data Breach for almost four months
underscores the out-of-date security practices and procedures it
had in place before and during the Data Breach. And when the Data
Breach was finally discovered, Defendant failed to provide adequate
or timely notice to the Data Breach victims. Indeed, it took IWP
nearly nine months from the date of discovery to start notifying
victims of the Data Breach.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
H. Luke Mitcheson, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
1601 Trapelo Road, Suite 1601
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (857) 383-4905
Facsimile: (857) 383-4930)
E-mail: lmitcheson @forthepeople.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
Alex Phillips, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
alexp@turkestrauss.com
- and -
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
Francesca Kester, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone: (813) 559-4908
E-mail: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
fkester@ForThePeople.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
J.B. HUNT: Manriquez FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAVIER MANRIQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC. and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Case No. 22CV009805, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on May 24, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-03060 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, the California's Investigative Consumer
Reporting Agency Act, the California's Consumer Credit Reporting
Agencies Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law by failing
to properly format certain employment disclosures during job
applications.
J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. is a provider of logistics, shipping, and
transportation services based in Lowell, Arkansas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason D. Russell, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 687-5000
Facsimile: (213) 687-5600
E-mail: jason.russell@skadden.com
- and –
Michael W. McTigue, JR., Esq.
Meredith C. Slawe, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 735-3000
Facsimile: (212) 735-2000
E-mail: michael.mctigue@skadden.com
meredith.slawe@skadden.com
J.M. SMUCKER: Faces Suit Over Misleading Peanut Butter Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett at topclassactions.com reports that Smuckers misled
the public by claiming its Jif peanut butter products contained
ingredients safe for consumption, despite them actually being
contaminated with salmonella, a new class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff John Kraljevich claims Smuckers sold Jif peanut butter
contaminated with salmonella from between Feb. 22 and May of this
year, ultimately resulting in a nationwide recall earlier this
month.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is currently investigating
how the contamination occurred at Smuckers' facility in Lexington,
Kentucky.
Kraljevich wants to represent a nationwide class and South Carolina
subclass of consumers who purchased Jif peanut butter products
recalled by Smuckers on or around May 20.
The Smuckers recall included more than 40 Jif peanut butter
products that were contaminated with salmonella, according to the
Smuckers class action.
Consumers Unaware Jif Peanut Butter Products Contaminated
Kraljevich argues consumers were unaware when they purchased the
Jif peanut butter products that they were contaminated with
salmonella.
"Consumers expect the food they purchase to be safe for consumption
and not contaminated by an organism 'which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections,'" states the Smuckers class action.
Kraljevich claims Smuckers is guilty of negligence, fraudulent
concealment, breach of warranties and unjust enrichment.
The plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting injunctive
and declaratory relief, along with all actual, general, special,
incidental, statutory, punitive and consequential damages for
himself and all class members.
A separate class action lawsuit was filed against Smuckers last
year by a consumer alleging its Crisco brand "Butter - No-Stick
Spray" does not actually contain butter.
If you suffered from Salmonella after eating peanut butter from
Smuckers, you can join a Jif Peanut Butter Recall Lawsuit
Investigation (links to paid attorney advertising).
The plaintiff is represented by Thomas R. Coffey of Morgan Potter
McGarvey and Roy T. Willey IV, Paul Doolittle and Blake G. Abbott
of Poulin | Wiley | Anastopoulo.
The Jif Peanut Butter Class Action Lawsuit is Kraljevich v. The
J.M. Smucker Co., Case No. 5:22-cv-00134, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. [GN]
JADE EATERY: Yuwono Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------------
SANDY YUWONO, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
the Class v. JADE EATERY & LOUNGE LLC, KFG HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC,
ARUN "KUMAR" BHAI, RICHARD [LNU] and SAM KANDHOROV, Case No.
1:22-cv-04227 (S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and unpaid wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that he and others similarly situated are
entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid statutory minimum wage
and proper overtime due to Defendants' invalid tip credit
allowance, unpaid spread of hours premium for each workday that
exceeded 10 or more hours, unpaid proper wages, including overtime,
due to an impermissible time-shaving policy, (iv) unpaid wages for
compensable break time, unlawfully retained gratuities due to an
invalid tip pooling policy, statutory penalties for unlawfully
claiming a tip credit in excess of the statutory amount
permissible, and statutory penalties for improperly claiming a tip
credit for all hours worked despite having caused tipped employees
to engage in non-tipped duties for hours exceeding 20% of the total
hours worked each workweek.
The Defendants collectively own and operate Jade Eatery & Lounge
LLC d/b/a Jade Eatery which is a restaurant and lounge.[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
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Edley Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Daniel Edley, Estate of Laszlo Louis Edley, by
and through Daniel Edley and Roger Edley on the behalf of said
Estate and as representatives of others similarly situated v.
Johnson & Johnson, John/Jane Doe Attorneys 1-1000, John/Jane Doe
J&J Corporate Members 1-1000, Case No. MID L 002204 22 was removed
from the Superior Court of New Jersey Middlesex County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on May 23, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-02970-FLW-TJB to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Asbestos P.I. for Asbestos
Litigation.
Johnson & Johnson -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is the largest and
most broadly based healthcare company in the world.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher M. Placitella, Esq.
COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH - RED BANK
127 Maple Avenue
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: (732) 747-9003
Fax: (732) 747-9004
The Defendants are represented by:
John C. Garde, Esq.
MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
Four Gateway Center
100 Mulberry Street
PO Box 652
Newark, NJ 07101-0652
Phone: (973) 622-4444
Email: jgarde@mccarter.com
JOHNSON'S TREE: Faces Arredondo Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GONZALO ARREDONDO, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. JOHNSON'S TREE SERVICE AND STUMP GRINDING, INC., DAVID
JOHNSON, and DAYNA JOHNSON, individually, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-06796-MCR-ZCB (N.D. Fla., May 24, 2022) brings this
complaint as a collective action against the Defendants to recover
money damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted,
full-time, hourly-paid landscaper approximately from July 15, 2019
to May 6, 2022.
The Plaintiff claims that despite working more than 40 hours a
week, the Defendants deprived him of his lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times of his regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The
Plaintiff asserts that he never agreed with the number of hours and
the wages he received every week, but he was afraid to complaint
further because of concerns about his physical integrity.
Consequently, he was forced to resign from his position because he
was not properly compensated by the Defendants although he was
working very hard.
The Plaintiff also seeks liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees, litigation costs, and other relief as the Court deems
equitable and just and/or available pursuant to the FLSA.
Johnson's Tree Service and Stump Grinding, Inc. provides
landscaping, tree trimming, tree removal, stump grinding, lot
clearing, and other related services. The Individual Defendants are
owners and operators of the Corporate Defendants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Tel: (305) 446-1500
Fax: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Cowan Community Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------------
COWAN COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03043 (N.D. Cal., May 24, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Cowan Community School Corporation is a public school district with
its offices located in Muncie, 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: Entices Youth to Buy E-Cigarettes, Southeast Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTHEAST FOUNTAIN 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-03044 (N.D. Cal., May 24, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit asserts.
Southeast Fountain School Corporation is a public school district
with its administrative offices located in Veedersburg, 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 Caston School Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
CASTON 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-03042 (N.D. Cal., May 24, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Caston School Corporation is a public school district with its
offices located in Rochester, 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
KA INVESTIGATIONS-SECURITY: Faces Coombs FLSA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
TREVOR COOMBS, MARK GITTENS, and SANJER PANTRY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KA
INVESTIGATIONS-SECURITY LLC and KELVIN ALEXANDER, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-03067 (E.D.N.Y., May 24, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
spread-of-hours premium, failure to provide wage notice, failure to
provide wage statements, and retaliation.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employees at any time between 2018 and 2021.
KA Investigations-Security LLC is a company that operates
subcontracting work, with its principal place of business located
at 534 Van Duzer Street, Staten Island, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kayla S. Callahan, Esq.
AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC
45 Broadway, Suite 1420
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 825-1400
E-mail: kayla@akinlaws.com
KAM ENTERPRISES: Davis Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
------------------------------------------------------------------
CALYNDRA DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KAM ENTERPRISES LLC dba FARMER BOYS; LEEZA
JAYNE BRAZIER; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
22STCV17280 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 25, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code, the California's Public Policy, and the
California's Business and Professions Code including failure to
compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to pay wages owed every pay period, failure to
pay wages when employment ends, failure to maintain accurate
records, failure to give rest breaks, failure to give meal breaks,
failure to provide personnel records, failure to provide pay
records, retaliation, wrongful termination, and unfair business
practices.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee at
the Farmers Boys restaurant in Gardena, California around
September/October 2021 until her termination in November 2021.
KAM Enterprises LLC, doing business as Farmer Boys, is a restaurant
owner and operator based in Los Angeles County, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com
KEEPER'S KIDS: Sisney Sues Over Misclassification, Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
KINA SISNEY on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, v. KEEPER'S KIDS, INC., AN
ILLINOIS CORPORATION AND BRIDGETTE HURT, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No.
1:22-cv-02746 (N.D. Ill., May 24, 2022) is an action brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and
the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance.
The Defendant owns and operates a daycare and preschool facility by
the same name. KKI provides manicure, pedicure and other salon, spa
and beauty services to appointment and walk-in customers.
The Plaintiff worked at Defendants' daycare and preschool in
Chicago, Illinois. During Plaintiff's entire employment, KKI
misclassified Plaintiff salary-exempt employee, misclassified the
Plaintiff as a 1099 independent contractor, improperly paid
Plaintiff all wages in cash, and once Plaintiff was converted to an
hourly worker, failed to pay overtime wages for hours worked over
40 per work week, says the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John W. Billhorn, Esq.
Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 853-1450
KELLY GROSSMAN: White Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHIRA WHITE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KELLY, GROSSMAN & KERRIGAN, LLP and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04259 (S.D.N.Y., May 24,
2022) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants
for their alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices.
The Plaintiff has allegedly incurred a financial obligation to
Sleepworks 3, Inc., who transferred the obligation to the Defendant
for the purpose of collection.
In an attempt to collect the obligation, the Defendant caused to
delivered to the Plaintiff a letter/notice dated December 3, 2021.
The Defendant's collection letter stated the Plaintiff's remaining
unpaid on the debt is $14,175.46 and that if not paid, a lawsuit
will be brought against her in the Commercial Claims Part of Court.
However, there was no agreement or law permitting the Defendant to
collect the amount from the Plaintiff. Also, the letter failed to
advise that the Defendant is a debt collector, says the suit.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has violated 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692e(2)(A) by falsely stating that the amount of the debt
is $14,175.46 and by falsely representing the amount of the debt.
As a result, the Plaintiff has suffered damages and other harm.
Kelly, Grossman & Kerrigan, LLP is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
One Grand Central Place
60 East 42nd Street 46th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (646) 459-7971
Fax: (646) 459-7973
E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com
KENNY'S CANDY: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kenny's Candy &
Confections, Inc. The case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kenny's Candy &
Confections, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04167 (S.D.N.Y., May 20,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kenny's Candy -- https://kennyscandy.com/ -- produces high-quality
and delicious treats for families using simple, pure ingredients
and a commitment to excellence.[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
KEVIN LIPTON: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kevin Lipton Rare
Coins, Inc. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Kevin Lipton
Rare Coins, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04189-ER (S.D.N.Y., May 20,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kevin Lipton Rare Coins -- https://klrci.com/ -- is a buyer, seller
and appraiser of rare coins located in the heart of Beverly
Hills.[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
KLOVA INC: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Klova Inc. The case
is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Klova Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04197 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Klova -- https://www.klova.com/ -- is a sleep innovation company,
rooted in developing nature-inspired sleeping aids backed by
science.[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
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Ramirez Suit Moved From S.D. Tex. to W.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ABRAN RAMIREZ, 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. 4:22-cv-01505, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on May 25,
2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00769-JFC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged strict product
liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, and negligent misrepresentation 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).
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:
Chad Matthews, Esq.
MATTHEWS & FORESTER
3027 Marina Bay Drive, Suite 320
League City, TX 77573
Telephone: (281) 535-3000
Facsimile: (281) 535-3010
E-mail: cmatthews@matforlaw.com
KROGER CO: Adhesive Patches Won't Last for 8 Hours, Lee Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Kroger Co., Case No. 3:22-cv-01086 (S.D. Ill., May
23, 2022) alleges that "Maximum Strength" adhesive patches which
claims to provide "Up to 8 Hours of Relief" is misleading because
it regularly peels off the bodies of users within a few hours, and
often minutes, after being applied.
According to the complaint, consumers expect up to eight hours will
mean the Product will remains applied for no less than eight hours
or even longer. The Directions confirm the Product will adhere to
the user’s skin for the full eight hours because it states to
"remove patch from the skin after at most 8 hours of application."
Kroger manufactures, markets, labels and sells "Maximum Strength"
adhesive patches promising to deliver 4% lidocaine under the Kroger
brand. The Product’s front label identifies it as "Lidocaine
Patch[es]," that are "Maximum Strength," containing "4%
Lidocaine/Topical Anesthetic" that provides relief "For Back, Neck,
Knees, Shoulders & Elbows." Lidocaine is a topical anesthetic used
to treat pain by blocking the transmission of pain signals from
nerve endings in the skin to the spinal cord and brain.
The label promises "Up to 8 Hours of Relief" and that it can be
used "For Temporary Relief of Pain," to "Desensitize Aggravated
Nerves," and provide "Numbing Relief." Although lidocaine patches
can be prescribed by doctors, they are available to consumers as an
over-the-counter ("OTC") product, says the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
LAYLA GRAYCE: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Layla Grayce, Inc.
The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. Layla Grayce, Inc.,
doing business as: Layla Grayce, Case No. 1:22-cv-03059-DG-RLM
(E.D.N.Y., May 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Layla Grayce -- https://laylagrayce.com/ -- is a renowned online
source for beautiful, curated home decor and furniture.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
LIDL US: Lopez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA LOPEZ, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class v. LIDL US, LLC d/b/a LIDL, Case No. 1:22-cv-04271
(S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid wages, including
overtime premiums, due to time-shaving, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff brings claim for relief as a collective action
pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), on behalf
of non-exempt employees (including all store associates, store
clerks, cashiers, stockers, and warehouse associates, and
supervisors) employed by Defendant in New York State on or after
the date that is three years before the filing of the Complaint in
this case ("FLSA Collective Plaintiffs").
The Defendant operates a chain of supermarkets with approximately
24 stores in New York State.[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) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
LINEROCK INVESTMENTS: Williams Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Linerock Investments,
LTD, et al. The case is styled as Rakiem Williams, Tony Brown,
Meagan Lehnert, Christina Glenn, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Linerock Investments, LTD, Vicman LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02531 (N.D. Ill., May 12, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Linerock Investments, LTD -- https://pho.to/ -- is an Android
developer and has developed cutting edge online photo processing
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy Elisabeth Keller, Esq.
James Arthur Ulwick, Esq.
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 214-7900
Email: akeller@dicellolevitt.com
julwick@dicellolevitt.com
alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
LIV GROUP: Dolce Files Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The LIV Group Inc.
The case is styled as Taylor Dolce, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. The LIV Group Inc., Case No.
7:22-cv-03858-PMH (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
The Liv Group Inc. is located in El Segundo, California and is part
of the Other Food Manufacturing Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
Steven Russell Schoenfeld, Esq.
James Robert Denlea, Esq.
DENLEA & CARTON LLP
2 Westchester Park Dr., Suite 410
White Plains, NY 10604
Phone: (914) 331-0100
Fax: (914) 331-0105
Email: jcarton@denleacarton.com
sschoenfeld@denleacarton.com
jdenlea@denleacarton.com
- and -
Philip Morgan Smith, Esq.
KRAVIT SMITH LLP
75 South Broadway, Suite 400
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (646) 493-8004
Fax: (917) 858-7101
psmith@kravitsmithllp.com
LONG ISLAND MARINE: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Long Island Marine
Group - Service LTD. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf
of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Long Island
Marine Group - Service LTD., Case No. 1:22-cv-04145 (S.D.N.Y., May
20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Long Island Marine Group -- https://www.longislandmarinegroup.com/
-- offers full service Yacht Brokerage assistance to customers on
Long Island's Gold Coast and beyond.[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
LOVE BUGS: Deveny Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Tips for Pet Sitters
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH DEVENY and JENNIFER FLANNERY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LOVE BUGS PET SITTING,
CASSANDRA SMREKAR, and MEGAN SMREKAR WILLIAMS, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-02058-LMM (N.D. Ga., May 24, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, withholding earned tips from employees, and conversion.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as pet sitters.
Love Bugs Pet Sitting is a pet services company, with its principal
place of business located at Marietta, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rachel Berlin Benjamin, Esq.
Brian J. Sutherland, Esq.
HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
400 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1100
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (404) 876-8100
Facsimile: (404) 876-3477
E-mail: rachel@hallandlampros.com
brian@hallandlampros.com
LTL MANAGEMENT: SDCERA Appeals Ruling in Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego County Employees Retirement Association filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in the proceeding entitled LTL
Management, LLC, Debtor. LTL Management, LLC, Chapter 11, Plaintiff
v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Association, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Defendants, Case
No. 21-30589 (MBK), Adv. Pro. No. 22-01073 (MBK), in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey.
This matter cames before the Court by way of the Debtor's
bankruptcy case (Case No. 21-30589) and subsequent adversary
proceeding (Adv. Pro. No. 22-01073).
On Oct. 14, 2021, LTL filed a voluntary petition for chapter 11
relief in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of
North Carolina. LTL is an indirect subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson
("J&J") and traces its roots back to Johnson & Johnson Baby
Products, Company, a New Jersey company incorporated in 1970 as a
wholly owned subsidiary of J&J. In relevant part, as the result of
intercompany transactions, one of J&J's corporate subsidiaries,
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. ("Old JJCI") assumed responsibility
for all claims alleging that J&J's talc-containing products caused
ovarian cancer and mesothelioma.
Old JJCI engaged in a series of transactions (the "2021 Corporate
Restructuring") on Oct. 12, 2021, through which it ceased to exist
and two new companies, LTL and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
("New JJCI"), were formed. The alleged purpose of this
restructuring was to "globally resolve talc-related claims through
a chapter 11 reorganization without subjecting the entire Old JJCI
enterprise to a bankruptcy proceeding." As a result of the
restructuring, LTL assumed responsibility for all of Old JJCI's
talc-related liabilities. Through the restructuring, LTL also
received Old JJCI's rights under a funding agreement. Under the
Funding Agreement, J&J and New JJCI are obligated to pay, inter
alia, "any and all costs and expenses" LTL incurs during its
bankruptcy case, "including the costs of administering the
Bankruptcy Case" to the extent necessary.
A week after LTL filed for bankruptcy under chapter 11 in the
Western District of North Carolina, the Debtor initiated an
adversary proceeding (the "Talc Adversary Proceeding"), seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief against plaintiffs who had filed
federal and state actions against the Debtor's affiliates and other
entities for talc-related claims. By way of the Talc Adversary
Proceeding, the Debtor sought an order declaring that the automatic
stay applies to those actions against nondebtors or, in the
alternative, to enjoin such actions and grant a temporary
restraining order pending a final hearing. The Debtor
simultaneously filed a motion requesting a preliminary injunction
enjoining the prosecution of actions outside of the chapter 11 case
on account of the same talc claims that exist against the Debtor in
the chapter 11 case.
Ultimately, the case was transferred to the District of New Jersey,
and the Debtor supplemented its initial brief and amended and
restated its arguments in support of the relief sought to reflect
Third Circuit precedent. Several interested parties opposed the
motion. Additionally, two separate parties filed motions to dismiss
the underlying bankruptcy, alleging it had been filed in bad
faith.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Michael
B. Kaplan issued a Memorandum Opinion (a) granting the Debtor's
Motion for an Order (i) Preliminarily Enjoining the Prosecution of
the Securities Class Action; and (ii) Granting a Temporary
Restraining Order Pending a Final Hearing; and (b) resolving the
adversary proceeding in favor of the Debtor without prejudice.
Judge Kaplan granted the Debtor's Motion and resolved the adversary
proceeding in favor of the Debtor without prejudice to revisiting
the continuation of the preliminary injunction at a later date as
discussed.
San Diego County Employees Retirement Association, et al., is
seeking a review of Judge Kaplan's Memorandum Opinion.
The appellate case is captioned as SAN DIEGO COUNTY EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT v. LTL MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-02856-GC, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, filed on May
13, 2022.[BN]
Appellant SAN DIEGO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY &
AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
Appellee LTL MANAGEMENT LLC is represented by:
David H. Wollmuth, Esq.
WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH, LLP
500 Fifth Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10110
Telephone: (212) 382-3300
E-mail: dwollmuth@wmd-law.com
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Houston Files Suit in D. Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed County of Maricopa, et al.
The case is styled as Brian Houston, a married man; and other
persons similarly situated (the Class) v. County of Maricopa,
Arizona; Paul PenzoneSheriff County of Maricopa, Arizona; Unknown
Penzone, Jane Doe Penzone; Case No. 2:22-cv-00875-SPL--MTM (D.
Ariz., May 23, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
Maricopa County -- https://www.maricopa.gov/ -- is in the
south-central part of the U.S. state of Arizona.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Ivchenko, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW IVCHENKO
4960 S Gilbert Rd., Ste. 1-226
Chandler, AZ 85249
Phone: (480) 250-4514
Email: aivchenkopllc@gmail.com
- and -
Daniel Linn Kloberdanz, Esq.
KOZUB KLOBERDANZ
7537 E. McDonald Dr.
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
Phone: (480) 624-2785
Fax: (480) 275-4649
Email: dkloberdanz@bkl-az.com
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Violates Wage & Labor Laws, Wood Class Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA WOOD, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE STAFFING, INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-00863-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal.,
May 20, 2022) is a collective and class action under federal and
California state law for wage and labor violations arising out of
Defendant Maxin Healthcare's failure to pay Plaintiff and class
members for overtime at their regular rate of pay, failure to
provide meal and rest breaks, and associated labor violations.
The Defendant operates a national healthcare professional staffing
company, and has a policy of failing to pay overtime based on all
nondiscretionary income Plaintiff and class members received.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in California as a nurse, and
did not receive overtime pay at the legal rate, and did not receive
lawful meal and rest breaks. The Plaintiff brings this action on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and seeks
compensatory, statutory and other damages, says the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq.
HAFFNER LAW PC
445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2625
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 514-5681
Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
vh@haffnerlawyers.com
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Scope of Discovery Dispute in Edwards Suit Solved
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIRIAM EDWARDS, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. McDERMOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Civil Action No.
4:18-cv-04330 (S.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, orders the Defendants to promptly apply the Plaintiffs'
proposed search terms, review responsive documents expeditiously
for privilege and relevance, and produce relevant and
non-privileged documents on a rolling basis.
I. Introduction
In this purported class action securities fraud case, the Court is
faced with a good old-fashioned discovery dispute: It must decide
the appropriate scope of discovery. The parties have submitted
informative letter briefs outlining their respective positions, and
the Court heard oral argument.
II. Background
The Court previously required the Defendants to collect documents
from 50 custodians chosen by the Plaintiffs. It further ordered the
parties to "promptly confer on the appropriate search terms to be
utilized for the 50 custodians selected by the Plaintiffs," adding
that "in the event the parties cannot come to an agreement on a set
of search terms, the Court is available to assist the parties in
this effort."
In November 2021, the Plaintiffs identified the 50 custodians from
whom they wanted to obtain documents. At the same time, they also
proposed search terms to be utilized to assist in gathering
responsive documents. For the past few months, the parties have
worked tirelessly to come up with appropriate search terms, sharing
various proposals with each other.
The parties now find themselves at an impasse. The Plaintiffs have
put together a list of proposed search terms that will result in
773,508 search hits (with an additional 519,337 family-member
documents). That means that the Plaintiffs' proposed search terms
would result in Defendants having to review roughly 1.3 million
documents (773,508 + 519,337) for privilege and relevance. Claiming
that Plaintiffs' proposed list is too expansive and will result in
exorbitant costs, the Defendants counter with search terms that
would require review of approximately 650,000 documents for
privilege and relevance.
III. Analysis
Rule 26(b)(1) mandates that discoverable matter must be both
relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. These "are
related but distinct requirements. A district court assesses six
factors when determining proportionality: (1) the importance of the
issues at stake in the action; (2) the amount in controversy; (3)
the parties' relative access to relevant information; (4) the
parties' resources; (5) the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues; and (6) whether the burden or expense of the
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. If a party resists
discovery on the grounds of proportionality, it bears the burden of
making a specific objection and showing that the discovery fails
Rule 26(b)'s proportionality calculation.
The present dispute focuses on the proportionality requirement.
Simply put, are the Plaintiffs' proposed search terms -- which will
require the Defendants to review close to 1.3 million documents --
proportional to the needs of the case? Or are the Defendants'
proposed search terms -- which will result in the review of about
half as many documents -- more proportional to the needs of the
case?
Judge Edison focuses on the six factors identified in Rule 26(b)(1)
for assessing proportionality:
(1) The Importance of the Issues at Stake: The Plaintiffs'
claims are brought under Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Given that a central purpose of these
securities laws is to protect investors and would-be investors in
the securities market against misrepresentations, there can be
little debate that the issues at stake in the case are meaningful.
(2) The Amount in Controversy: The large amount the Plaintiffs
are seeking to recover (more than $1 billion in damages) weighs
heavily in favor of allowing the sought-after discovery.
(3) The Parties' Relative Access to Relevant Information: The
requested documents consist of emails and other electronic
communications maintained by the Defendants. Because the Defendants
have complete and exclusive control over McDermott's electronic
platforms, the Plaintiffs have no way of obtaining such information
other than from the Defendants through the discovery process. This
factor also weighs in favor of the proportionality of the
sought-after discovery.
(4) The Parties' Resources: Judge Edison really does not have
much to go by here. He knows that McDermott has been through a
bankruptcy proceeding, and the Plaintiffs' main source of recovery
is expected to be through an insurance agreement. But Judge Edison
is unaware of the specific policy limits, and neither side has
offered any argument or evidence on this factor. As a result, he
views this factor as neutral.
(5) The Importance of the Discovery in Resolving the Issues:
The Plaintiffs' search terms appear, for the most part, to be
tailored to obtaining documents that are relevant to the claims and
defenses in the case. As Judge Edison have noted before: "He is
well aware of the costs associated with email pulls. He is also
mindful of how important email searches can be to unlocking the
truth in securities fraud cases." Nobody, of course, knows what the
email searches will reveal until the documents are reviewed and
non-privileged, relevant documents are produced. But it is awful
likely that the sought-after documentation is relevant and highly
probative of the Plaintiffs' claims and the Defendants' defenses in
the case.
(6) Whether the Burden or Expense of the Proposed Discovery
Outweighs its Likely Benefit: The truth of the matter is that Judge
Edison cannot say, with absolute certainty, that the Plaintiffs'
requested search terms will provide substantially more information
than the Defendants' proposed search terms. He says, the whole
purpose of the proportionality requirement is to set boundaries on
the amount of documentation the Plaintiffs can obtain through the
discovery process. Discovery in securities fraud cases is costly.
To protect defendants in securities fraud cases from the
burden and expense of premature discovery, the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 precludes discovery until the
district court sustains the sufficiency of the complaint. What
ultimately sways Judge Edison is that fact that Judge George C.
Hanks, Jr. has denied the Defendants' motions to dismiss the claims
brought under Sections 10(b) and 14(a). As a result, the Defendants
are fully entitled to employ the discovery devices provided by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The discovery door has been flung
wide open, and the Plaintiffs should be allowed to probe inside.
The purported damages in the case are huge, and that indicates to
Judge Edison that the Plaintiffs' proposal is proportional to the
needs of the case. It is a close call, but he ultimately concludes
that the scales tip in favor of the Plaintiffs on the
proportionality analysis.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons he set forth, Judge Edison orders the Defendants to
promptly apply the Plaintiffs' proposed search terms, review
responsive documents expeditiously for privilege and relevance, and
produce relevant and non-privileged documents on a rolling basis.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 18, 2022 Order & Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5bswdssk from Leagle.com.
MEDSCAN LABORATORY: Krol Files Suit in D. North Dakota
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medscan Laboratory,
Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Krol, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Medscan Laboratory, Inc. doing
business as: Adaptive Health Integrations, Case No.
1:22-cv-00091-DMT-CRH (D.N.D., May 23, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Fraud.
Medscan Laboratory Inc. -- https://www.medscanlab.com/ -- is a
hospital & health care company based in Williston, North
Dakota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC
111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 2122, Ste. 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 984-0000
Email: malmstrom@whafh.com
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Court Dismisses Counts 2 & 3 in Cohen Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BARTHOLOMEW COHEN, Plaintiff v. MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT
BUREAU, LLC, Defendant, Civ. No. 21-16977 (KM) (JSA) (D.N.J.),
Judge Kevin McNulty of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts 2 and 3
of Plaintiff's Complaint.
I. Introduction
In August 2021, Plaintiff Cohen received a letter from the
Defendant that sought to resolve a $12,013.10 debt originally owed
to Regional Acceptance Corp. The following month, the Plaintiff
filed the suit, claiming that he owed no debt to either Defendant
or Regional and that the Defendant's efforts to collect on that
debt violated multiple provisions of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692 to 1692p. Now
before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts 2 and
3 of the Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6).
II. Background
The debt animating this dispute was supposedly owed to Regional,
went into default, and was subsequently acquired by Defendant,
though the dates of these events are not pleaded. The Plaintiff
denies ever owing money to Regional but alleges that he received a
letter from Defendant stating that he had an account with Regional
that was "listed with the Defendant's office for collection" and
had a balance due of $12,013.10.
The letter, dated Aug. 4, 2021, stated that the Defendant would
accept payment of $6,007 by Sept. 18, 2021, to resolve the debt. It
also listed a phone number and mailing address for the Defendant
and indicated that if the Plaintiff disputed the debt within 30
days, the Defendant would "obtain verification of the debt" and
mail him a copy.
On Sept. 15, 2021, the laintiff filed his Complaint, alleging
multiple violations of the FDCPA, specifically that (1) the
Defendant's communications with a third-party vendor regarding the
debt violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692c(b) and Section 1692f ("Count
1"); (2) the Defendant's statement that the Plaintiff owed
$12,013.10, despite the Plaintiff's claim that he owes no such
amount, violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g ("Count 2"); and (3) the
Defendant's statement that the Plaintiff owed the alleged debt
constituted "a false, deceptive, and/or misleading representation"
in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e ("Count 3").
On Nov. 17, 2021, the Defendant filed the partial motion to dismiss
now before the Court, seeking the dismissal of Counts 2 and 3
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
III. Discussion & Analysis
1. Plaintiff's Claim Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g (Count 2)
The FDCPA requires that debt collection letters include, among
other things, "the amount of the debt," 15 U.S.C. Section
1692g(a)(1), and "the name of the creditor to whom the debt is
owed." The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant violated these
requirements by sending him a debt collection letter regarding a
debt that he "did not owe at all."
The Defendant, arguing that the Plaintiff's claim is premised on a
lack of information about the debt's current creditor, maintains
that the Plaintiff's ignorance of the debt's chain of title does
not demonstrate that an FDCPA violation occurred. In this, to be
sure, the Defendant appears to mischaracterize the Plaintiff's
argument as he does not predicate his claims on the debt's chain of
title but rather disclaims the debt entirely.
Judge McNulty agrees that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim
under Section 1692g. He finds that the Defendant's letter would
apprise the least sophisticated debtor of the essentials outlined
by the FDCPA: The alleged debt's amount, the entity to which it is
allegedly owed, and the right to contest and obtain verification of
the alleged debt. Whether or not the Plaintiff is in fact indebted
to Defendant, the FDCPA claim fails because the letter complied
with the requirements of Section 1692g to notify him of his rights.
Accordingly, Judge McNulty grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss
Count 2 of the Complaint.
2. Plaintiff's Claim Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e (Count 3)
Section 1692e states that a "debt collector may not use any false,
deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with
the collection of any debt." The section includes a non-exhaustive
list of prohibited practices, including (as relevant in the case)
making false representations as to "the character, amount, or legal
status of any debt," Section 1692e(2)(A), and using "any false
representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect
any debt," Section 1692e(10).
The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's statement that he owed a
$12,013.10 debt was false and thus violated Section 1692e(2)(A) and
Section 1692e(10). As before, the Defendant presses a flimsy and
largely irrelevant argument that the Plaintiff has failed to show
"that the purported failure to identify the current creditor" was
material.
Judge McNulty finds that the Plaintiff has indeed failed to state a
claim under Section 1692e, albeit not for the reasons offered by
the Defendant. He says, the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged a
violation of Section 1692e because he fails to provide any factual
detail to support his claim that he owes no debt to either the
Defendant or Regional. He cannot find that the Plaintiff has
plausibly alleged factually that either (1) he owes no debt to the
Defendant; or (2) that the Defendant's letter contains materially
false, deceptive, or misleading statements. Hence, Judge McNulty
grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss Count 3 of the Plaintiff's
Complaint.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons he set forth, Judge McNulty grants the Defendant's
motion to dismiss Counts 2 and 3 of the Plaintiff's complaint.
A separate order will be issued.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 18, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/muw2e6dc from Leagle.com.
MERCARI INC: Duff Files Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercari, Inc. The
case is styled as Arelia Duff, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Mercari, Inc., Case No.
5:22-cv-02797-NC (N.D. Cal., May 11, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Mercari, Inc. -- https://www.mercari.com/ -- is a Japanese
e-commerce company founded in 2013, with offices in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq.
Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 891-9800
Fax: (510) 891-7030
Email: cab@colevannote.com
lvn@colevannote.com
sec@colevannote.com
MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Schaired Files Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monterey Financial
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Robert M. Schaired,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Monterey Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00736-BAS-MDD
(S.D. Cal., May 23, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated Consumer Credit for Unsolicited
Telephone Sales.
Monterey Financial Services -- https://www.montereyfinancial.com/
-- is a full service receivables management and finance company
that tailors to the specific needs of your business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas M. Wajda, Esq.
WAJDA LAW GROUP, APC
3111 Camino Del Rio North, Ste. 400
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (310) 997-0471
Fax: (866) 286-8433
Email: nick@wajdalawgroup.com
MYLEC INC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mylec, Inc. The case
is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Mylec, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04253
(S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mylec -- https://mylec.com/ -- is a manufacturing company that
focuses on producing and selling a full range of hockey sports
tools and accessories.[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
NEIL BYRD: Glass Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Neil Byrd. The case
is styled as Anthony Glass, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated individuals v. Neil Byrd, Individually and in
his official capacity as Sheriff of Phillips County, Arkansas, Case
No. 2:22-cv-00091-BSM-JTR (E.D. Ark., May 24, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Prison Condition: Civil Rights for
Prisoner Civil Rights.
Neil Byrd -- https://www.phillipscountysheriffar.org/administration
-- is a Sheriff at Phillips County based in Helena, Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Luther Oneal Sutter, Esq.
SUTTER & GILLHAM, PLLC
Post Office Box 2012
Benton, AR 72018
Phone: (501) 315-1910
Fax: (501) 315-1916
Email: luthersutter.law@gmail.com
NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Suit Alleges Misleading Glucose Control Drinks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien at Legal Newsline reports that Diabetics aren't
benefiting from Nestle's BOOST-brand glucose control drinks, a new
class action alleges.
Three firms - Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, Kuzyk Law and The Rothenberg
Law Firm - filed suit May 16 against Nestle Healthcare Nutrition,
claiming the company's marketing is misleading and taking advantage
of diabetics' desire to treat their disease.
The suit says claims that the drinks control glucose are false.
"Defendant's own clinical trial concluded that the products were
associated with merely a lesser rise in glucose levels as compared
to one other unidentified nutritional drink," the suit says.
"Shockingly, the products do not control glucose at all, but rather
only produce a slightly favorable response to glucose levels as
compared to one other unidentified product."
The products state "HELP MANAGE BLOOD SUGAR" and "DESIGNED FOR
PEOPLE WITH DIABETES."
Because the drinks are not FDA-approved drugs, they may not "bear
explicit or implied disease claims," the suit says. [GN]
NITRO BEVERAGE: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nitro Beverage Inc.
The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Nitro
Beverage Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03008 (E.D.N.Y., May 23, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
NITRO Beverage Co. -- https://drinknitro.com/ -- makes certified
Organic & Fair Trade nitro cold brew coffee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
NORTHEAST RADIOLOGY: Judge Dismisses PACS Data Breach Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
hipaajournal.com reports that a class action lawsuit filed against
NorthEast Radiology PC and Alliance HealthCare Services over a data
breach that exposed the protected health information of more than
1.2 million individuals has been dismissed by a New York Federal
Judge for lack of standing.
The lawsuit was filed in July 2021 on behalf of plaintiffs Jose
Aponte II and Lisa Rosenberg, whose protected health information
was exposed as a result of a misconfiguration of the companies'
Picture Archiving Communication System (PACS), which contained
medical images and associated patient data. In late 2019, security
researchers identified the exposed data and notified the affected
companies, which included Northeast Radiology and its vendor,
Alliance HealthCare Services.
According to the lawsuit, more than 61 million medical images were
exposed along with the sensitive data of 1.2 million patients.
Northeast Radiology reported the breach to the HHS' Office for
Civil Rights as affecting 298,532 individuals. The lawsuit alleged
the defendants had implemented inadequate security safeguards to
ensure the privacy of patient data, which allowed medical images
and other protected health information to be accessed by
unauthorized individuals between April 14, 2019, and January 7,
2020. The plaintiffs alleged that they face an ongoing and imminent
risk of identity theft and fraud, as there is no way to cancel
protected health information. They claim they now need to
continuously monitor their accounts and use credit and identity
theft monitoring services, and expend additional time and effort to
prevent and mitigate against potential future losses.
It is now common for lawsuits to be filed against healthcare
organizations following data breaches, but the lawsuits often do
not succeed due to the failure to provide evidence that harm as a
result of the exposure or theft of personal data, as was the case
here. Judge Vincent L. Bricetti, Federal Judge for the Southern
District of New York, dismissed the lawsuit as the plaintiffs
failed to allege a cognizable injury. The judge ruled that the mere
exposure of sensitive data did not establish the plaintiffs had
been harmed by the incident, and that the risk of future harm from
the exposure of their sensitive data was too speculative to
establish standing.
While the data breach was reported to the HHS' Office for Rights as
affecting up to 298,532 individuals, NorthEast Radiology was only
able to confirm that the data of 29 patients had definitely been
subjected to unauthorized access, and the two plaintiffs named in
the lawsuit were not part of that small group.
Judge Bricetti referred to the decision of the Second Circuit
Court's decision in McMorris v. Carlos Lopez & Associates, LLC,
which established a three-factor test for determining whether
allegations of an injury from a data breach gave rise to a
cognizable Article III injury-in-fact:
"(1) whether the plaintiffs' data has been exposed as the result of
a targeted attempt to obtain that data; (2) whether any portion of
the dataset has already been misused, even if the plaintiffs
themselves have not yet experienced identity theft or fraud; and
(3) whether the type of data that has been exposed is sensitive
such that there is a high risk of identity theft or fraud."
Judge Bricetti rejected all of the plaintiffs' claims for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of
implied contract, violations of New York General Business Law
Section 349, and intrusion upon seclusion. [GN]
NSURE INSURANCE: Devivo Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
COLLEEN DEVIVO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NSURE INSURANCE AGENCY INC., Defendant, Case
No. CACE-22-007592 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct., May 24, 2022) is a class
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engages in telephonic
sales calls to consumers without having secured prior express
written consent as required by the FTSA. On or about April 16, she
received telephonic sales call to her cellular telephone number
allegedly from the Defendant in an attempt to solicit its business.
The Plaintiff asserts that she never provided the Defendant with
express written consent to transmit telephonic sales calls using an
automated system.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has also transmitted to
other individuals’ cellular telephone numbers the same telephonic
sales calls, which have caused them harm in the form of statutory
damages, inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, and
annoyance.
On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, the
Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all
telephonic sales calls made without express written consent. The
Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages, and other relief as the
court deems necessary.
Nsure Insurance is an online insurance shopping platform and
insurance agency. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Tel: (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
Tel. (Office): (786) 289-9471
Tel. (Direct): (305) 975-3320
Fax: (786) 623-0915
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
chris@edelsberglaw.com
O'GARA GROUP: Metz Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & ERISA Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW METZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
THE O'GARA GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00286-DRC (S.D. Ohio, May
24, 2022) is a class action for the recovery, by Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees of Defendant, of damages in the
amount of 60 days' pay and ERISA benefits by reason of the
Defendant's violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act).
The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant and was terminated
as part of, or as a result of, mass layoffs and/or plant closings
ordered by the Defendant. Pursuant to the WARN Act, the Defendant
violated federal law by failing to give Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees of the Defendant at least 60 days'
advance notice of termination, as required by the WARN Act. As a
result, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of the
Defendant are entitled under federal law to recover from the the
Defendant their wages and ERISA benefits for 60 days, none of which
has been paid, says the suit.
The case is a class action for the recovery, by Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees of Defendant, for the recovery of
unpaid accrued paid time off (PTO). At the time of their respective
terminations, the Plaintiff and others similarly situated employees
of Defendant had accrued PTO time for which Defendant owed a duty
to pay in full at the end of employment, the suit added.
Until on or about March 3, 2022, Plaintiff and all similarly
situated employees were employed by Defendant and worked at or
reported to their facilities.
O'Gara Group is a manufacturer of armored vehicles located in
Fairfield, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Okiishi, Esq.
Stephen E. Imm, Esq.
FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
Cincinnati, OH 45245
Telephone: (513) 943-6659
Facsimile: (513) 943-6669
E-mail: matt@finneylawfirm.com
stephen@finneylawfirm.com
OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in Moore
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Moore, et al., v. Oregon
Department of Corrections, Case No. 3:21-cv-00599 (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 Russum
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russum v. Brown, et al.,
Case No. 6:21-cv-00836 (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 Slater
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Slater v. Brown et al.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00229 (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 Sykes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sykes v. Reyes et al.,
Case No. 2:21-cv-01871 (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 Thomas
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Thomas v. Brown, et al.,
Case No. 6:21-cv-00568 (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 Trimble
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Trimble v. Brown et al.,
Case No. 6:21-cv-00233 (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 Vollert
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vollert v. Brown, et al.,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00585 (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 Yocum
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yocum v. Hendricks, Case
No. 6:20-cv-01923 (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]
OS RESTAURANT: Thomas Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN THOMAS, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. OS RESTAURANT SERVICES, LLC AND
FLEMING'S/BOSTON, LP, Case No. 1:22-cv-10793 (D. Mass May 24, 2022)
implicates the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act's tip credit and subsequent underpayment of their employees at
the federally mandated minimum wage rate, as well as violations of
the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wages Law for Defendants' failure to
pay Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers their earned
minimum wages.
According to the complaint, the Defendants pay their tipped
employees, including servers and bartenders, below the minimum wage
rate by taking advantage of the tip-credit provisions of the FLSA
and, in Massachusetts, the MFWL. Under the tip-credit provisions,
an employer may under certain circumstances, pay those tipped
employees less than the minimum wage rate by taking a "tip credit"
against the employer's minimum wage obligations from the tips
received from customers.
The Defendants own and operate a chain of restaurants under the
trade name "Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar" throughout the
United States. Defendants currently own and operate these
restaurants in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Connecticut,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and
Wisconsin. During the relevant time period, the Defendants operated
a Fleming's restaurant in Boston, Massachusetts.
Fleming's restaurants are full-service restaurants that employ
tipped workers, including servers and bartenders, to provide
service to customers.
The Defendants employed Plaintiff and the Class Members as "tipped
employees," in positions such as servers and bartenders. Servers
gather orders from customers and deliver food and drinks to the
customers. Servers are paid an hourly wage by Defendants and
receive tips from customers. A bartender prepares and serves drinks
to customers. A bartender is likewise paid an hourly wage by
Defendants and receives tips from customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arnold. J. Lizana, III, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III, P.C.
1350 Main Street, Suite 302
Springfield, MA 01103
E-mail: alizana@attorneylizana.com
Telephone: (877) 443-0999
- and -
Don J. Foty, Esq.
William M. Hogg, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
whogg@hftrialfirm.com
- and -
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM LLC
The Heritage Building, Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com
PACIFICA SENIOR: Tan Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Mona Rae Tan, individually and on behalf of all aggrieved employees
v. PACIFICA SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT LLC, a Delaware Corporation,
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2022-01258972-CU-OE-CXC (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 10, 2022), is brought against the Defendants who
have engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations
under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission
("IWC") Wage Orders.
The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that
the Defendants have increased their profits by violating state wage
and hour laws by, among other things: failing to pay all wages
owed, including minimum wage and overtime; failing to provide all
lawful meal periods, or provide compensation in lieu thereof;
failing to authorize or permit lawful rest periods, or provide
compensation in lieu thereof; failure to pay timely wages; failing
to reimburse for business expenses; and willfully failing to
provide accurate semi-monthly itemized wage statements. The
Plaintiff brings this lawsuit seeking monetary relief against
Defendants on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees to
recover, among other things, civil penalties, attorney's and costs
and expenses pursuant to Labor Code, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by PACIFICA from July 2019 until March
4, 2021 and occupied a non-exempt position as a Med Aid and
Caregiver.
PACIFICA manufactures and installs solar roofing throughout the
State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
Kacey E. Cook, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6676
PANEL SYSTEMS: Sierra Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
LEONARDO SIERRA, OSMIN MENDOZA and EDUARDO FLORES, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated V. PANEL SYSTEMS, INC.
and MICHAEL DONOVAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00580 (E.D. Va., May 20,
2022) seek to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and treble damages and attorneys' fees per
the Virginia Wage Payment Act.
The Plaintiffs bring this case as a collective action under the
FLSA and the Virginia Wage Payment Act on behalf of themselves and
all similarly-situated employees, including all current and former
non-exempt employees of Defendants who performed piece work or were
paid on a piece-rate basis for the period of three years before the
filing of the instant Complaint until April 29, 2022, when PSI
changed its policy and began paying hourly rates instead of piece
rates, thereby ending its unlawful policy of failing to pay
overtime for piece work in violation of Federal and Commonwealth
law.
Plaintiffs Leo Sierra, Osmin Mendoza, and Eduardo Flores bring this
wage theft action against their employers, Panel Systems, Inc. and
Michael Donovan.
The Defendants created and maintained a sweatshop-style workplace
by forcing their employees to work as many as 58 hours per week
building prefabricated wall panels while failing to pay them
overtime for worked performed after 40 hours per workweek, says the
suit.
Federal and Commonwealth wage and hour laws require employers that
pay on a piece-rate basis to also pay an overtime premium for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendants intentionally flouted
these requirements, seeking to maximize profits by making
Plaintiffs work as many hours as possible without paying them the
overtime premium required by law, the suit added.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Hanna, Esq.
Joni Jacobs, Esq.
MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC
1401 K Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 223-2620
Facsimile: (202) 296-9600
E-mail: mhanna@murphypllc.com
PARKER HANNIFIN: Fails to Secure Employees Info, Rowe Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
GARY ROWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-00852-BMB
(N.D. Ohio, May 23, 2022) arises out of the data breach involving
Parker Hannifin, a multibillion-dollar manufacturing company
headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.
According to the complaint, Parker Hannifin allegedly failed to
properly safeguard its current and former employees' (and their
dependents') personally identifiable information (PII), including
but not limited to their full names, Social Security numbers, dates
of birth, addresses, driver's license numbers, U.S. passport
numbers, financial account information (bank account and routing
numbers), online account usernames, and passwords, as well as
protected health information (PHI), including but not limited to
enrollment information (such as health insurance plan member ID
numbers), dates of coverage, dates of service, provider names,
claims information, and medical and clinical treatment
information.
As a result of the Defendant's failures, Plaintiff and thousands of
other individuals have had their most sensitive personal
information stolen and publicly published on the internet. The
information that was published to the internet is one-stop
shopping
for identity thieves to wreak complete havoc on their victims'
lives. Moreover, given the sensitivity and static nature of the
information involved (such as names, Social Security numbers, dates
of birth), Plaintiff and Class Members will be forced to live in
fear forever. Businesses that collect and store Private Information
about their employees and employees' families have statutory,
regulatory, contractual, and common law duties to safeguard that
information and ensure it remains private, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and those similarly situated relied upon Defendant to
maintain the security and privacy of the Private Information
entrusted to it as part of the condition of employment. The
Plaintiff and Class Members reasonably expected and understood that
Defendant would comply with its obligations to keep the Private
Information secure and safe from unauthorized access, and to delete
Private Information that was not reasonably necessary to hold for a
legitimate business purpose.
The Defendant is responsible for allowing this data breach through
its failure to implement and maintain reasonable network
safeguards, its unreasonable data retention policies, failure to
adequately train employees, and its failure to comply with
industry-standard data security practices. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other members of the Class,
assert claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, and
unjust enrichment, and seek injunctive relief, declaratory relief,
monetary damages, and all other relief as authorized in equity or
by law, added the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
dgould@msdlegal.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
221 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (847) 208-4585
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
dlietz@milberg.com
PARKER HANNIFIN: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Rowe Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GARY ROWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION, Case No.
2:22-cv-02222-EAS-EPD (N.D. Ohio, May 20, 2022) is a class action
arises out of the data breach involving Parker Hannifin, a
multibillion-dollar manufacturing company headquartered in
Cleveland, Ohio.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to properly
safeguard its current and former employees' (and their dependents')
personally identifiable information ("PII"), including but not
limited to their full names, Social Security numbers, dates of
birth, addresses, driver's license numbers, U.S. passport numbers,
financial account information (bank account and routing numbers),
online account usernames, and passwords, as well as protected
health information ("PHI"), including but not limited to enrollment
information (such as health insurance plan member ID numbers),
dates of coverage, dates of service, provider names, claims
information, and medical and clinical treatment information.
As a result of Defendant's failures, the Plaintiff and thousands of
other individuals have had their most sensitive personal
information stolen and publicly published on the internet. The
information that was published to the internet is one-stop shopping
for identity thieves to wreak complete havoc on their victims'
lives. Moreover, given the sensitivity and static nature of the
information involved (such as names, Social Security numbers, dates
of birth), Plaintiff and Class Members will be forced to live in
fear forever, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and those similarly situated relied upon the
Defendant to maintain the security and privacy of the Private
Information entrusted to it as part of the condition of employment.
The Plaintiff and Class Members reasonably expected and understood
that Defendant would comply with its obligations to keep the
Private Information secure and safe from unauthorized access, and
to delete Private Information that was not reasonably necessary to
hold for a legitimate business purpose, the suit added.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
dgould@msdlegal.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
221 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (847) 208-4585
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
dlietz@milberg.com
PAUL J. HOOTEN: Fischman Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paul J. Hooten &
Associates. The case is styled as Elky Fischman, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Paul J. Hooten &
Associates, Case No. 3:22-cv-02751-GC-DEA (D.N.J., May 11, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Paul J. Hooten & Associates -- https://www.pjhooten.com/ -- is a
law firm and provides full service legal advice.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eliyahu Babad, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza
Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ebabad@steinsakslegal.com
PERRY ELLIS: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Perry Ellis
International, Inc. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Perry Ellis
International, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04151 (S.D.N.Y., May 20,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Perry Ellis International -- https://www.pery.com/ -- is an
American clothing, fashion, cosmetics and beauty company that
includes a portfolio of brands distributed through multiple
channels worldwide.[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
PFIZER INC: Faces MSP Suit Over Conspiratorial Drug Price Increase
------------------------------------------------------------------
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware series limited
liability company; MSP Recovery Claims PROV, Series LLC, a Delaware
series limited liability company; MSPA CLAIMS I, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company; MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, Series PMPI, a
segregated series of MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, a Delaware series
limited liability company; and MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS SERIES 44, LLC,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
PFIZER, INC.; ADVANCED CARE SCRIPTS; and PATIENT ACCESS NETWORK
FOUNDATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-01419 (D.D.C., May 20, 2022) arises
from Pfizer's conspiratorial scheme to increase the unit price and
quantity dispensed of three Pfizer drugs, Sutent, and Inlyta, which
both treat renal cell carcinoma, and Tikosyn, which treats
arrhythmia in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter
("Pfizer Drugs").
The Plaintiffs' assignors and the Class Members paid
supra-competitive prices for artificially inflated quantities of
dispensed Subject Pfizer Drugs on behalf of beneficiaries enrolled
in their health plans (Enrollees) as a result of this scheme, says
the suit.
As part of this Scheme, ACS shared PANF data with Pfizer, to ensure
that PANF did in fact use the purported "donations" to pay the
co-pays for patients' prescriptions of Sutent and Inlyta. Pfizer,
ACS, and PANF ensured that Medicare and Medicaid patients taking
Sutent and Inlyta moved from Pfizer's free drug program to PANF. In
doing so, Defendants increased the price of the Subject Pfizer
Drugs by eliminating price sensitivity. As part of this Scheme,
Pfizer conspired with PANF to create and finance a fund for
Medicare patients being treated for arrhythmia with atrial
fibrillation or atrial flutter. Pfizer coordinated the timing of
the opening of the fund for the Medicare patients with a Tikosyn
price increase, and referred all Medicare patients who needed
financial assistance to meet their newly-increased copays for
Tikosyn to PANF. Tikosyn patients accounted for virtually all of
the beneficiaries of the fund, the suit added.
The Defendants also funneled patients away from Pfizer's free drug
program -- which remained available to non-Medicare/Medicaid
beneficiaries -- by ensuring that the large sums of money Pfizer
continuously paid to PANF improperly influenced PANF's practices.
The Pfizer Settlement did not address or settle damages sustained
by the Assignors and Class Members. The terms of the Pfizer
Settlement did not address the claims Plaintiffs set forth in the
action. The Defendants used mail and wires to carry out their
racketeering Scheme. Pfizer utilized the wires to transmit their
"donations" to PANF, which, in reality, were bribes. PANF would
then transmit data using the mail and wires -- both directly to
Pfizer and to Pfizer through ACS -- allowing Pfizer to perform what
amounted to return on investments ("ROI") calculations on their
"donations," the suit further asserts.
The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to redress the damages sustained
by the Assignors and Class Members as a result of Defendants'
alleged unlawful Scheme to increase the price and dispensed
quantity of the Subject Pfizer Drugs.
Pfizer is an American multinational pharmaceutical and
biotechnology corporation headquartered on 42nd Street in
Manhattan, New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shereef H. Akeel, Esq.
Adam S. Akeel, Esq.
Sam R. Simkins, Esq.
Daniel W. Cermak, Esq.
AKEEL & VALENTINE, PLC
888 W. Big Beaver Road 420,
Troy, MI 48084
E-mail: shereef@akeelvalentine.com
adam@akeelvalentine.com
sam@akeelvalentine.com
daniel@akeelvalentine.com
- and -
Robert T. Strongarone, Esq.
John W. Cleary, Esq.
Aida M. Landa, Esq.
MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
2701 S. LeJeune Road, 10th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 614-2222
E-mail: rstrongarone@msprecoverylawfirm.com
jcleary@msprecoverylawfirm.com
alanda@msprecoverylawfirm.com
PHH MORTGAGE: Court Rejects Withdrawal of Reference in O'Flynn Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID ROBERT O'FLYNN, DONALD L. WILHOLD, JAMES
ADDISON, and REGINA ADDISON, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, OCWEN
FINANCIAL CORPORATION, and ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS, SA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00335-JMS-DLP (S.D. Ind.), Judge Jane
Magnus-Stinson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, rejects U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Robyn Moberly's Recommendation to the District Court to Withdraw
the Reference Pursuant to Local Rule B-5011-1(b)
I. Introduction
Plaintiffs David O'Flynn, James Addison, and Regina Addison were
all debtors in Chapter 13 cases filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of Indiana and Plaintiff Donald Wilhold
was a debtor in a Chapter 13 case filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The Plaintiffs
initiated an Adversary Proceeding against the Defendants by filing
a Complaint alleging claims on behalf of themselves and a putative
class. As is protocol in this District, the Adversary Proceeding
was referred to the Bankruptcy Court and after the Defendants filed
Motions to Dismiss, Judge Moberly initiated the action by filing a
Recommendation to the District Court to Withdraw the Reference
Pursuant to Local Rule B-5011-1(b). The Recommendation is now ripe
for the Court's consideration.
II. Background
The Plaintiffs -- all of whom were Chapter 13 debtors in bankruptcy
proceedings -- filed a Class Action Complaint against the
Defendants in the Bankruptcy Court on Aug. 31, 2021. In their
Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants engaged in
fraudulent practices in connection with the servicing of home
mortgage loans owed by individuals involved in Chapter 13
bankruptcy proceedings. They allege that the Defendants "have
engaged in a common scheme involving the creation and collection of
fees, costs, charges and other amounts in circumvention of the
Bankruptcy Code and in violation of federal consumer protection
statutes." The scheme, they allege, "has resulted in countless
borrowers and debtors like them completing the rigid requirements
of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy only to be denied the `fresh start' to
which they were entitled."
The Plaintiffs set forth claims for: (1) violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C.
Section 1962(c) (Count I); (2) violation of RICO and conspiracy to
violate RICO, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d) (Count II); (3) violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692k (Count III); (4) violation of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. Section 2605, et
seq. (Count IV); (5) contempt and sanctions for violating the
discharge injunction provided by 11 U.S.C. Section 524(i),
violating Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002.1, and
violating the automatic stay set forth in 11 U.S.C. Section 362(a)
(Count V); and (6) unjust enrichment (Count VI).
The Plaintiffs bring their claims individually and on behalf of the
following class and subclass:
a. Chapter 13 Class: All individuals who were debtors in a
Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding wherein an Order of Discharge was
entered from Aug. 27, 2015 to present whose first or second
residential mortgage loan was serviced by Ocwen during the pendency
of their bankruptcy proceeding, Ocwen or PHH at the time the Order
of Discharge was entered, and who thereafter received some form of
communication from Ocwen or PHH regarding any fees, costs, charges,
escrow deficiency, or delinquency predating the Order of
Discharge.
b. Unjust Enrichment Subclass: All individuals who were
debtors in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding wherein an Order of
Discharge was entered in the Southern or Northern District of
Indiana from Aug. 27, 2015 to present whose first or second
residential mortgage loan was serviced by Ocwen during the pendency
of their bankruptcy proceedings, Ocwen or PHH at the time the Order
of Discharge was entered, and who thereafter paid any amounts to
Ocwen or PHH, whether directly or via refinance, associated with
any fees, costs, charges, escrow deficiency, increased principal
balance, or delinquency predating the Order of Discharge.
On Feb. 1, 2022, Judge Moberly initiated the case by filing the
Recommendation. Judge Moberly expressed concern with the potential
inability to enter a final judgment if the Motions to Dismiss were
granted and recommended that the District Court withdraws its
reference for the case "EXCEPT the Defendants' motions to dismiss
and all other matters to be decided under Count V of the Class
Action Complaint to the extent they pertain exclusively to debtors
and Plaintiffs David R. O'Flynn, James Addison and Regina Addison,
whose bankruptcy cases were resolved by the undersigned."
Magistrate Judge Doris Pryor held a status conference in the case
on April 12, 2022. At the status conference, the parties advised
that they all agreed that the Bankruptcy Court has the authority to
decide the Motions to Dismiss. PHH and Ocwen advised that they
believe that if the Motions to Dismiss are not granted, Count V
would need to be decided by the Bankruptcy Court while the other
claims would need to be decided by the District Court. Altisource
stated its position that if the Motions to Dismiss are not granted,
the referral should be withdrawn. The Plaintiffs advised that they
will do whatever the Court requires.
III. Discussion
The parties have filed various reports and briefs related to the
issue of whether the Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction to decide
the Motions to Dismiss as they relate to the Non-Discharge Claims
and enter final judgment, if appropriate. But the bottom line --
and the latest position the parties have taken -- is that all the
parties consented to the Bankruptcy Court deciding the Motions to
Dismiss when they met with Magistrate Judge Pryor on April 12,
2022. This is a new circumstance that did not exist when Judge
Moberly filed her Recommendation. Accordingly, based on the
parties' unanimous consent, Judge Magnus-Stinson rejects Judge
Moberly's Recommendation to the District Court to Withdraw the
Reference Pursuant to Local Rule B-5011-1(b).
IV. Conclusion
Because the parties now consent to the Bankruptcy Court deciding
the Motions to Dismiss pending in the Adversary Proceeding, Judge
Moberly may decide the pending Motions to Dismiss and enter final
judgment, if warranted, based on that consent. Accordingly, the
Judge Magnus-Stinson rejects Judge Moberly's Recommendation to the
District Court to Withdraw the Reference Pursuant to Local Rule
B-5011-1(b), and declines to withdraw the Court's reference of the
matter to the Bankruptcy Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3ruhk49m from Leagle.com.
PINGORA LOAN: Kassem Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Kassem, Kimberley Rowton, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pingora Loan
Servicing, LLC, Pingora Asset Management, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01125 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of District of Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on May 20, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-21566-KMW to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Pingora -- https://pingorafund.com/ -- is a mortgage service and
specialized asset management company in the United States and is
located in Denver, Colorado.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Phone: (405) 235-1560
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
PINNACLE TOO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Charles Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
DEXLON CHARLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. PINNACLE TOO, LLC, d/b/a PINNACLE ELECTRIC;
AGIR ELECTRICAL, LTD., d/b/a PINNACLE ELECTRIC; FRANKCRUM 6, INC.
d/b/a FRANKCRUM FRANK CRUM JR.; and ANTONY GIRONTA, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04232 (S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2022) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Charles was employed by the Defendants as electrician.
PINNACLE TOO, LLC, d/b/a PINNACLE ELECTRIC is an electrical
contractor. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
POWERLINE CYCLES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Acton Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEAMUS A. ACTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POWERLINE CYCLES, INC.; THOMAS BRUNO; and
MARK ROMMACCI, Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-04305 (S.D.N.Y., May
25, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Acton was employed by the Defendants as technician.
POWERLINE CYCLES, INC. operates as a shop specializing in
motorcycles, atvs, watercraft, and utility vehicles. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bernard Weinreb, Esq.
2 Perlman Drive, Suite 310
Spring Valley, N.Y. 10977
Telephone: (845) 369-1019
Email: boruch@cs.com
PRICKLEE LLC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pricklee LLC. The
case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Pricklee
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03010 (E.D.N.Y., May 23, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Pricklee -- https://pricklee.com/ -- offers low sugar and low
calorie cactus water with real fruit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
PRIDE HOSPITALITY: Muhammad Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yadullahi Muhammad, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. Pride
Hospitality LLC, and Jai Patel, Case No. 1:22-cv-03047 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 24, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime
wages, untimely pay, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Labor Law, and the
NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.
The Plaintiff was employed as a security personnel, exterminator,
housekeeper, personnel, and superintendent at Defendants' hotels
from June 2019 to through and including June 6, 2020. The Plaintiff
was employed as a non-managerial employee for the Defendants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42 nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
PRINCE OF PEACE: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prince of Peace
Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Prince of Peace
Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04164 (S.D.N.Y., May 20,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Prince of Peace -- https://www.popus.com/ -- is an importer and
distributor of over 40 renown brands from all around the world and
is also known for its famous Ginger Honey Crystals and American
Ginseng products.[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
PROCTORU INC: Stalcup Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kyle Stalcup, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ProctorU, Inc., was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois on May 20,
2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02108-CSB-EIL to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
ProctorU -- https://www.proctoru.com/ -- is a distance proctoring
company that provides internet-based test monitoring for education
and certification exams.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew T. Heldut, Esq.
David L. Gerbie, Esq.
Jordan R. Frysinger, Esq.
Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW PC
55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 893-7002
Fax: (312) 275-7895
Email: aheldut@mcgpc.com
tkingsbury@mcgpc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Thomas Julian Butler, Esq.
MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC
1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 1700
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205) 254-1063
Fax: (205) 254-1999
Email: tbutler@maynardcooper.com
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Mouynivong Sues Over Unreimbursed Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
GARY MOUYNIVONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 220502208 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty.,
May 24, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for
declaratory relief, return of premiums, unjust enrichment,
violation of consumer protection law, fraud, and injunctive
relief.
The class action seeks to recover premiums paid by the Plaintiff
and Class members for stacked coverage under single vehicle motor
vehicle policies issued in accordance with the requirements of the
Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. The
Defendant charged the Plaintiff and Class members an additional
premium for stacked uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage
despite knowing that no stacking coverage benefit was being
provided, says the suit.
Progressive Advanced Insurance Company is an insurance firm based
in Columbus, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM
134 Kings Highway East, 2nd Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 772-7200
- and –
John P. Goodrich, Esq.
JACK GOODRICH & ASSOCIATES
429 Fourth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 261-4663
RACERWORLD LLC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Myers Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Nicole Myers, et al., Plaintiffs v. Racerworld LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. CV-21-01244-PHX-MTL (D. Ariz.), Judge
Michael T. Liburdi of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona grants the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and
Dismiss.
I. Introduction
Plaintiffs Nicole Myers and Emily Peters assert a collective and
class action against Racerworld, LLC d/b/a Bourbon Street, and
other Defendants (collectively "Bourbon Street"), for alleged
misclassification under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29
U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and related Arizona law. The Plaintiffs
are exotic dancers who claim that Bourbon Street misclassified
their status as independent contractors, required that they pay
rent, and compensated them solely with tips. They allege that they
should have been classified as employees and paid wages. Bourbon
Street now moves to dismiss and seeks enforcement of an arbitration
clause in both the Plaintiffs' license agreements.
II. Background
Bourbon Street is an "adult entertainment club" that offers exotic
dancing to its patrons. Plaintiffs Myers and Peters allege that
they worked as exotic dancers at Bourbon Street from August 2017 to
November 2019. They were classified as independent contractors but
aver that they and the putative class and collective members should
have been classified as employees. The Complaint alleges that
Bourbon Street personnel "hired/fired, issued pay, supervised,
directed, disciplined, and performed all other duties generally
associated with that of an employer with regard to the dancers."
Bourbon Street, moreover, "required the Plaintiffs and other exotic
dancers to perform private dances under the pricing guidelines,
policies, procedures, and promotions set exclusively by the
Defendants."
Both Plaintiffs executed contracts with Bourbon Street denominated
as License Agreements. The Agreements signed by Myers and Peters
appear to be identical. Myers signed her Agreement in October 2018,
over one year after she began working at the Bourbon Street
premises. Peters signed her agreement on Aug. 18, 2017, about the
time that she began working there.
The Agreements indicate that each dancer is granted "a nonexclusive
license to perform adult entertainment personal services for
patrons during the periods of time the Premises is open to the
general public." They also require that the Plaintiffs pay Bourbon
Street a "License Fee" "in exchange for the privilege of exercising
the License" and they include a provision disclaiming an
employer-employee relationship.
Both Agreements contain a "Binding Arbitration and Class Action
Waiver" that "applies to any dispute between you and Bourbon Street
or anyone acting for and on behalf of Bourbon Street." The
Arbitration Agreement further addresses the subject of class
actions in a stand-alone subparagraph entitled "Class Action
Waiver." Finally, under the heading "Claims or Disputes Must be
Filed within One Year," the Arbitration Agreement specifies that,
"To the extent permitted by law, any claim or dispute to which the
Arbitration Agreement applies must be filed within one year in
arbitration. The one-year period begins when the claim or Notice of
Dispute first could be filed. If such a claim or dispute isn't
filed within one year, it's permanently barred."
Based on these provisions, Bourbon Street now moves to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' Complaint and seeks an order compelling arbitration.
III. Discussion
A. Validity of Arbitration Agreement
The Plaintiffs do not dispute that they signed the License
Agreements. They instead offer several arguments as to why, in
their estimation, the Arbitration Agreement is unenforceable -- it
is illusory for lack of consideration and mutuality, fails to meet
the Plaintiffs' reasonable expectations, is substantively
unconscionable, and violates public policy.
First, Judge Liburdi holds that none of the Plaintiffs' arguments
are persuasive. The Arbitration Agreement is supported by both
mutuality and consideration. The Agreement requires both parties to
resolve their claims through arbitration, not just the Plaintiffs.
Accordingly, the Arbitration Agreement is bilateral, not
unilateral.
Second, the License Agreement is not illusory because both parties
rendered performance capable of operating as consideration. The
parties' relationship continued, uninterrupted, for years. Thus,
consideration has been exchanged and obligations have been
triggered on both sides. Relatedly, the parties' actions
demonstrate that they believed they were entering into a valid
agreement.
Third, Judge Liburdi holds that there are no allegations that the
Plaintiffs' arbitration costs would be prohibitive. While the
existence of overwhelming arbitration costs could theoretically
preclude the Plaintiffs from effectively vindicating their rights,
the Complaint contains no indication that the Plaintiffs will bear
such oppressive costs. Thus, the terms of the Arbitration Agreement
are neither bizarre nor oppressive, and the reasonable-expectations
doctrine is inapplicable.
Fourth, the Arbitration Agreement's cost provisions are neither
oppressive nor preclude the Plaintiffs from pursuing their
statutory claims. Again, the Agreement provides that the
"arbitrator will determine the amount of fees, costs, and
expenses," and the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that their
arbitration costs would be prohibitively expensive.
Fifth, the Agreement's terms are also not so one-sided as to be
fairly classified as substantively unconscionable. The License
Agreement was terminable by both parties at will and the
Arbitration Agreement was modifiable by Bourbon Street only with
consent. Additionally, Bourbon Street was, likethe Plaintiffs,
explicitly bound by the Arbitration Agreement, including the class
action waiver. Thus, the License Agreement, including the
Arbitration Agreement, is neither substantively unconscionable nor
violative of public policy.
Finally, despite the Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary, the
RUAA is irrelevant. Even assuming that Section 12-3003(B)(1) is not
preempted by the FAA, the FAA governs in the case because the
parties specifically agreed that it would: "If you and Bourbon
Street don't resolve any dispute by information negotiation or in
small claims court within 60 days from the date a Notice of Dispute
is sent, any other effort to resolve the dispute will be conducted
exclusively by individual arbitration governed by the FAA." Thus,
because the FAA applies, the instant dispute is arbitrable, whether
or not the License Agreement is in fact an "employment agreement.
B. Scope of Arbitration Agreement
Having decided that the Arbitration Agreement is valid, Judge Mann
must now determine whether the instant dispute falls within the
scope of the Agreement.
The Plaintiffs concede that the bulk of their claims come within
the scope of the Arbitration Agreement. They claim, however, that
Plaintiff Myers' claims from prior to October of 2018 are not
governed by the Agreement because she "began working for the
Defendants in August of 2017 and she did not sign the License
Agreement until October of 2018."
Bourbon Street responds that Plaintiff Myers' claims are captured
by the Arbitration Agreement because "(1) the Provision's language
does not make clear that it only applies to claims that may arise
going forward; and (2) the Provision covers any dispute between the
parties concerning the agreement, which governs the entire
licensee/licensor relationship.
Given the breadth of this language, Judge Liburdi concludes that
Myers' claims, even those predating her signing the License
Agreement, come within the Arbitration Agreement's scope. While
some courts have held that the choice of language in an arbitration
provision may suggest that the provision governs only present or
future conduct, the language is not so limited. Rather, it
encompasses all disputes between the parties concerning the License
Agreement. The Agreement, which governs the parties' entire
relationship, is unquestionably implicated by all of Myers' claims,
even those predating her signing of the Agreement. Accordingly, all
her claims must go through arbitration.
C. Arbitrability of Collective and Class Action
The parties did not agree to submit to class arbitration in the
case. Indeed, the Arbitration Agreement explicitly and specifically
precludes the arbitration of class claims. This provision is valid
and controlling, and must be given effect by the Court.
D. Remedy
"A district court may dismiss an action, rather than stay it, when
all of the issues are arbitrable." In the case, for the reasons
described, all the claims are arbitrable. Judge Liburdi will
therefore dismiss the case without prejudice and order that the
parties submit to arbitration.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, Judge Liburdi grants the Defendants' Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Dismiss.
The Clerk of the Court to dismiss the action without prejudice and
close the case.
The oral argument set for May 25, 2022, is vacated. Judge Mann
finds that the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented
in the parties' papers and in the record. The decisional process
would not have been significantly aided by oral argument.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3tn3my4j from Leagle.com.
RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Lucero Files ADA Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Recreational
Equipment, Inc. The case is styled as Christopher Lucero,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Recreational Equipment, Inc. doing business as: REI, Case No.
4:22-cv-02977-DMR (N.D. Cal., May 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Recreational Equipment, Inc., commonly known as REI --
https://www.rei.com/ -- is an American retail and outdoor
recreation services corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
RELIABLE LANDSCAPE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bergen Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN BERGEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RELIABLE LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC.; LEONARD
ROBBINS; JANE DOE ROBBINS; LINDA ROBBINS; and JOHN DOE ROBBINS,
Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00245-JCH (D. Ariz., May 24, 2022)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Bergen was employed by the Defendants as landscaping
technician.
RELIABLE LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC. provides landscape design,
concept to installation, for residential and commercial clientele.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
P.O. Box 97066
Phoenix, AZ 85060
Telephone: (480) 382-5176
Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
Email:cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
chris@bendaulaw.com
RELIANT PRO: Avoids Overtime Pay Obligations, Anderson Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA ANDERSON, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RELIANT PRO REHAB LLC, d/b/a RELIANT REHAB,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 1:22-at-00362 (E.D.
Cal., May 20, 2022) sues the Defendant for violations of the
California state wage laws.
The Defendant has allegedly maintained an unlawful scheme to avoid
its overtime pay obligations and deny lawfully required bona fide
off-duty breaks to a class of thousands of Therapists to increase
profits to the tune of millions of dollars each year at the expense
of its hard working and dedicated employees. As part of this scheme
to avoid paying wages, and to save millions in labor costs as well
as to unfairly reap many millions of dollars in profits, akin to
stealing the earned wages of thousands of therapists, Defendant
maintained a De Facto policy or commanding and pressing Therapists
to underreport, and submit inaccurate and unreliable time sheets,
to work without meal breaks and to work off the clock, the suit
says.
Therapists were told not to self-report more than 8 hours per day
and 40 hours for the week no matter how many additional hours they
worked, and to self-report 30-minute meal breaks they rarely if
ever took as a matter of policy, the lawsuit added.
Reliant Pro Rehab is a hospital & health care company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
6916 West Linebaugh Avenue, No. 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
REVELETTE ENTERPRISES: Underpays Managers, Karnell Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JESSIE KARNELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REVELETTE ENTERPRISES, LLC, ARJN, LLC, ARJN
#3, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE - GREEN HILLS, LLC, JONATHAN'S
GRILLE-HENDERSONVILLE, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE - SPRING HILL, LLC
JONATHAN'S GRILLE - MURFREESBORO, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE -
PROVIDENCE, LLC, JONATHAN'S GRILLE - EAST RIDGE, LLC, JONATHAN'S
GRILLE - CLIFT FARMS, LLC, THE RUTLEGDE - FOUR SEASONS NASHVILLE,
LLC, MASON REVELETTE, and CURTIS REVELETTE, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-00380 (M.D. Tenn., May 24, 2022) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
August 2016 to October 2021 first as a server, then later as a
bartender, and eventually as an assistant manager (beginning in
approximately March 2017) and a general manager (beginning in
approximately early 2018) at the Defendants' various restaurants.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated management employees frequently work in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek. However, the Defendant did not pay them overtime pay
at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated management
employees, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid and underpaid
wages that the Defendant have failed and refused to pay, as well as
prejudgment interest, liquidated damages, litigation costs,
expenses, attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems just
and proper in equity under the law.
The Corporate Defendants operate restaurants. The Individual
Defendants own and operate the Corporate Defendants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Tel: (615) 244-2202
Fax: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barretjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
REWARD ZONE: Trim Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lucine Trim filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled Lucine Trim, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Reward Zone USA LLC;
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01027-SVW-KS, in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Los Angeles.
The Plaintiff brought this putative class action against Defendant
Reward Zone USA alleging four causes of action under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that in 2020, she began receiving text
messages from Defendant on her cell phone that contained "spam
advertisements and/or promotional offers" that sought to "solicit
[Defendant's] 'rewards' and other associated promotions." The
Plaintiff claims that Defendant used an "automatic telephone
dialing system" and a "prerecorded or artificial voice" to contact
her without her prior express consent and in doing so, violated the
TCPA. The Plaintiff also claims that her phone number was on the
National Do-Not-Call Registry and that Defendant's messages to her
constituted telephone solicitations that further violated the TCPA.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent two classes: one consisting of
persons who received similar unsolicited text messages from
Defendant and the other consisting of such person who were
registered on the Do-Not-Call Registry while receiving those
messages.
After this case was originally filed in 2020, the complaint had
been amended twice when the Court stayed the case pending a
decision from the Supreme Court in a case that concerned which
types of systems constituted an "automatic telephone dialing
system" under the TCPA. The Supreme Court issued its opinion 1n
that case, Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 1163 (2021), on
April 1, 2021.
The Court then issued an order to show cause, noting that some of
Plaintiff's claims might be barred under the Supreme Court's Duguid
decision. The Plaintiff responded, asserting that she believed she
could re-plead her claims in a manner consistent with Duguid. The
parties stipulated to filing a Third Amended Complaint.
On December 1, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss a
third amended complaint filed in the case which the Court granted
on January 28, 2022, through an Order entered by Judge Stephen V.
Wilson.
On April 28, 2022, Judge Wilson entered Judgment for Defendant as
to Plaintiffs' first and second claim as alleged in the Third
Amended Complaint, and ruled that Plaintiffs shall take nothing on
these claims.
The Plaintiff is now seeking a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as Lucine Trim v. Reward Zone USA
LLC, et al., Case No. 22-55517, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 24, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Lucine Trim Mediation Questionnaire was due on May
31, 2022;
-- Appellant Lucine Trim opening brief is due on July 19, 2022;
-- Appellees Does and Reward Zone USA LLC answering brief is due
on August 18, 2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant LUCINE TRIM, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Defendant-Appellee REWARD ZONE USA LLC is represented by:
Jay T. Ramsey, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
333 S Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
Telephone: (310) 228-2259
RTZN BRANDS: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RTZN Brands, LLC. The
case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RTZN Brands, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04252 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
RTZN -- https://www.rtznbrands.com/ -- provides a one-stop shop for
unique, clean, functional-ingredient snacks aimed to energize and
refuel general consumers, guests, employees, and athletes.[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
RUSSELL STOVER: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Russell Stover
Chocolates, LLC. The case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Russell Stover
Chocolates, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04196 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Russell Stover Chocolates, Inc. -- https://www.russellstover.com/
-- is an American supplier of candy, chocolate, and
confections.[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
SAMPLER STORES: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sampler Stores, Inc.
The case is styled as Kevin Davis, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Sampler Stores, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04273 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sampler Stores, Inc., doing business as Kansas Sampler --
http://www.rallyhouse.com/-- operates as a sports boutique. The
Company offers sporting apparel, gifts, novelties, food, and home
decor.[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
SAMSONITE COMPANY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samsonite Company
Stores, LLC. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Samsonite Company
Stores, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04165 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Samsonite Company Stores, LLC -- http://shop.samsonite.com/-- was
founded in 1995. The company's line of business includes the retail
sale of luggage, trunks, and leather goods.[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
SCRUPLES PROFESSIONAL: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scruples Professional
Salon Products, Inc. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Scruples Professional Salon Products, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04251-GHW (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Scruples Professional Salon Products --
https://scrupleshaircare.com/ -- is a cosmetics company offering
hair care and hair color products.[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
SIKI EAGLE: Faces Dawood Suit Over Mislabeled Air Purifiers
-----------------------------------------------------------
MAHMOOD DAWOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIKI EAGLE SARL, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-at-00524 (E.D. Cal., May 25, 2022) alleges that the Defendant
is engaged in the large-scale distribution, advertising, marketing
and sale of air purifiers which are falsely, misleadingly, and
damagingly represented, branded and advertised to sufficiently
purify a recommended room size, but in reality can only purify a
considerably smaller room per applicable industry standards.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and members of the
putative Class, were harmed and they would not have purchased or
would have paid substantially less for the Product had they been
advertised correctly - which is to say that they would have been
advertised as providing sufficient air purification for a room of
up to 191 square feet; however, they were not advertised as such.
SIKI EAGLE SARL is a French corporation which manufactures, sells,
and distributes Colzer-brand products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: bscott@bursor.com
-and-
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
-and-
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
Email: nsuciu@milberg.com
SINCERELY LLC: Gonzalez Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sincerely, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Mark Gonzalez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Sincerely, LLC doing business
as: MyLendingLoan, Michael Kirschner, Case No. 3:22-cv-02992 (C.D.
Cal., May 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Sincerely, LLC was founded in 2014 and is based in Boca Raton,
Florida.[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
SOLAREN RISK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hendrixson Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIRK ALLEN HENDRIXSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOLAREN RISK MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00375 (M.D. Tenn., May 23, 2022) is an
action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.
Plaintiff Hendrixson was employed by the Defendant as security
guard.
SOLAREN RISK MANAGEMENT, LLC provides event security & police
personnel and traffic. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
SOM FRIENDS: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Som Friends Inc. The
case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Som Friends Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04198 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Som -- https://getsom.com/ -- is a sleep drink that helps support
sleep.[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
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Lollis Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwest Credit
Systems, L.P. The case is styled as Alisha S. Lollis, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Southwest Credit
Systems, L.P., Case No. 8:22-cv-01175-MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla., May 23,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Act.
Southwest Credit Systems -- https://www.swcconsumer.com/ -- is a
debt collection agency based in Carrollton, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander J. Taylor, Esq.
NATIONAL LITIGATION LAW GROUP, LLP
2401 Northwest 23rd Street, Suite 42
Oklahoma City, OK 73107
Phone: (630) 366-0140
Email: ataylor@nationlit.com
SPERO THERAPEUTICS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of July 25 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of Spero
Therapeutics, Inc. ("Spero" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SPRO). The
class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased Spero
securities between October 28, 2021 and May 2, 2022, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors are hereby notified that
they have until July 25, 2022 to move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff in this action.
What actions may I take at this time? If you suffered a loss and
are interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff,
please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone
at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.
To join this action, you can click or copy and paste the link below
in a browser:
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/spero-therapeutics-inc-class-action-tebipenem-fda-approval
There is no cost or obligation to you.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the data submitted in support of the Tebipenem
HBr NDA were insufficient to obtain FDA approval; (ii) accordingly,
it was unlikely that the FDA would approve the Tebipenem HBr NDA in
its current form; (iii) the foregoing would necessitate a
significant workforce reduction and restructuring of Spero's
operations; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Spero class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the Spero class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. For more information regarding the lead
plaintiff process please refer to
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/lead-plaintiff-deadlines.
About Johnson Fistel
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel
seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal
securities laws. For more information about the firm and its
attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney
advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. [GN]
SPORTRX LLC: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SportRx LLC. The case
is styled as Rafael Cordero, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SportRx LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04247
(S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
SportRx -- https://www.sportrx.com/ -- has been creating innovative
prescription sports glasses since 1996.[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
SSM HEALTH CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brashear Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH J. BRASHEAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SSM HEALTH CARE CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case: 4:22-cv-00569 (E.D. Mo., May 24, 2022) seeks to
recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Brashear was employed by the Defendant as staff.
SSM HEALTH CARE CORPORATION provides health care services. The
Hospital offers cardiology, pediatrics, oncology, emergency care,
orthopedic surgery, rehabilitation, pain management, behavioral
health, cardiovascular medicine, transplant, and digestive health
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah Jane Hunt, Esq.
KENNEDY HUNT, P.C.
4500 West Pine Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63108
Telephone: (314) 872-9041
Facsimile: (314) 872-9043
Email: sarahjane@kennedyhuntlaw.com
-and-
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
STERICYCLE INC: 25% Attorney Fee Award in Securities Suit Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: STERICYCLE SECURITIES LITIGATION. ST. LUCIE
COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION TRUST FUND, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees v. STERICYCLE, INC., et al., Defendants.
APPEAL OF: MARK PETRI, Objector-Appellant, Case No. 20-2055 (7th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit:
(i) vacates the district court's 25% attorney fee award and
remands for recalculation; and
(ii) affirms denial of Mark Petri's motion for discovery.
I. Introduction
The appeal challenges an attorney fee award of 25% of a
class-action settlement in this securities fraud case. Class member
Petri objected to the award and asked the district court to permit
discovery into potential "pay-to-play" arrangements between class
counsel and one of the public pension funds serving as a lead
plaintiff. The court denied both requests, concluding that the fee
award was reasonable and that the pay-to-play allegations lacked
merit. Petri has appealed.
II. Background
Stericycle is a waste management company with both government and
private customers. Several years before the securities fraud case
was filed, a former Stericycle employee brought a qui tam action
under the federal False Claims Act and analogous state laws. The
whistleblower alleged that Stericycle was imposing illegal price
increases on government customers with fixed-price contracts. After
investigation, New York settled with Stericycle for $2.4 million in
2013, and the other governments later settled for a total payment
of $28.5 million. Private customers also filed suit based on
similar allegations and eventually settled for $295 million.
In October 2015, as these claims mounted and customers were leaving
the company, the price of Stericycle's common stock dropped from
$149.04 per share to $120.31. The price of Stericycle's depositary
shares also fell, from $106.34 to $92.56.
On behalf of the company's investors, two Florida pension funds
filed this securities fraud class action against Stericycle, its
executives, members of its board, and the underwriters of its
public offering. The complaint alleged that the Defendants had
inflated the stock price by making materially misleading statements
about Stericycle's fraudulent billing practices. Using the
procedures of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the
district court appointed two other pension funds -- the Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi and the Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System -- as the Lead Plaintiffs and Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as the Lead Counsel for the class.
Pleadings and motion practice followed for almost two years. The
Plaintiffs filed multiple amended complaints, and Stericycle
countered with corresponding motions to dismiss. No merits
discovery was conducted, which is also consistent with the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.
With motions to dismiss still pending, the parties agreed to settle
for $45 million. The Lead Counsel moved for a fee award of 25% of
the settlement fund, as well as reimbursement of costs. Petri, a
member of the class, objected only to the fee award, arguing that
the amount was unreasonably high given the low risk of the
litigation and the early stage at which the case settled. Petri
also moved to lift the stay the court had entered while the
settlement agreement was pending so that he could seek discovery
regarding class counsel's billing methods, the fee allocation among
firms, and counsel's political and financial relationship with the
Mississippi fund.
The district court approved the $45 million settlement. It also
approved the proposed 25% attorney fee, finding the fee reasonable
based on the contingent nature of the litigation and the positive
outcome for the class. The court denied Petri's discovery motion,
reasoning that the fee award was based on a percentage of the fund
rather than on billable hours or a lodestar calculation, the funds
had already explained how they planned to distribute the award, and
Petri had not provided any evidence of wrongdoing in the
relationship between lead counsel and the Mississippi fund. Petri
appealed both the attorney fee award and the discovery ruling.
III. Discussion
The Seventh Circuit explains that in assessing the reasonableness
of a fee request, a district court must attempt to approximate the
fee that the parties would have agreed to at the outset of the
litigation without the benefit of hindsight. The court should do
its best "to award counsel the market price for legal services, in
light of the risk of nonpayment and the normal rate of compensation
in the market at the time." The market rate for legal work "depends
in part on the risk of nonpayment a firm agrees to bear, in part on
the quality of its performance, in part on the amount of work
necessary to resolve the litigation, and in part on the stakes of
the case." This estimation ex post is "inherently conjectural," yet
district courts can look to actual fee agreements, data from
similar cases, and class-counsel auctions to guide their analysis.
The district court in the present case acknowledged that it needed
to make this effort to try to replicate what a pre-lawsuit market
arrangement would or should have been. It decided to award the
class counsel a percentage of the settlement -- rather than
calculating the award based on the lodestar of hours times hourly
rates -- and then said that it needed to "attempt to give counsel
an amount that the parties themselves might have bargained for."
From there, however, the court's analysis was incomplete for three
reasons, the Seventh Circuit holds. First, the court failed to
consider an actual ex ante fee agreement between one of the funds
and its counsel. Second, the court's assessment of the risk of
nonpayment did not give sufficient weight to the prior litigation
involving Stericycle, which substantially reduced the risk of
nonpayment. Third, in evaluating lead counsel's efforts, the court
did not give sufficient weight to the early stage at which the case
settled.
The cumulative effect of these issues leads the Seventh Circuit to
conclude that the district court's analysis did not sufficiently
"reflect the market-based approach for determining fee awards that
is required by our precedent."
IV. Conclusion
The Seventh Circuit concludes that the district court did not give
sufficient weight to evidence of ex ante fee agreements, all the
work that the class counsel inherited from earlier litigation
against Stericycle, and the early stage at which the settlement was
reached. It vacates the fee award and remands for a fresh
determination more in line with what an ex ante agreement would
have produced. With respect to the objector's request for discovery
into possible pay-to-play arrangements, the Seventh Circuit finds
no abuse of discretion, though it also would not have found an
abuse of discretion if the discovery had been granted. It affirms
the denial of Petri's motion for discovery.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/46a2r897 from Leagle.com.
STOVER & CO: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stover & Co Inc. The
case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Stover & Co Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04194 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Stover & Company -- https://stovercompany.com/ -- is a
fourth-generation family-owned and operated bakery and
confectionery supply distributor.[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
SUPER73 INC: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Super73, Inc. The
case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Super73, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04201
(S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
SUPER73 -- https://super73.com/ -- is an American lifestyle
adventure brand and manufacturer of electric bicycles based in
Irvine, California.[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
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Weaver Sues Over Mismanagement of Corporate Assets
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JACK WEAVER, derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant TACTILE
SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff v. BRENT MOEN, WILLIAM BURKE,
PETER SODERBERG, RAYMOND O. HUGGENBERGER, RICHARD NIGON, KEVIN H.
ROCHE, LYNN BLAKE, GERALD R. MATTYS, ROBERT FOLKES, and BRYAN F.
RISHE, Defendants, and TACTILE SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, INC., Nominal
Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-01403-NEB-JFD (D. Minn., May 24, 2022)
is a shareholder derivative action against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 14(a), 29(b), 21(d), 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
breaches of fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, during the Class Period, May 7, 2018
through June 8, 2020, the Defendants made false and misleading
proxy statements soliciting shareholder votes for their election as
directors which earned them excessive compensation. The Defendants
also made and/or signed materially false and misleading statements
to investors including in reports on Forms 10-Qs and 10-Ks filed
during the Class Period that exposed Tactile to liability and
inflated Tactile's stock price thus allowing insiders to enjoy
illegal insider trading profits. Moreover, the Defendants also
allowed Tactile to engage in illegal referral practices which
exposed Tactile to liability and/or government sanctions that have
cost Tactile tens of millions of dollars and lost reimbursements.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover insider trading profits and
compensation performance awards to officers and directors'
compensation and to seek damages to Tactile arising out of the
Defendants' violations of statutory and common law fiduciary duties
that have occurred which have caused, and continue to cause,
substantial harm to Tactile and its shareholders, including
monetary losses and damages to the company's business, assets,
reputation and goodwill, the suit says.
Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. is a manufacturer of medical
devices, with principal executive offices located in Minneapolis,
Minnesota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651) 287-2100
E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
- and –
Lee Squitieri, Esq.
SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 421-6492
- and –
Fletcher Moore, Esq.
Justin Kuehn, Esq.
MOORE KUEHN, PLLC
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 709-8245
TEAK WAREHOUSE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teak Warehouse Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Teak Warehouse Inc., doing
business as: Teak Warehouse, Case No. 1:22-cv-03060-BMC (E.D.N.Y.,
May 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Teak Warehouse -- https://teakwarehouse.com/ -- has been a
manufacturer of high-end outdoor furniture for over 25 years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
THEORY LLC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Theory, LLC. The case
is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Theory, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02973-PKC-PK
(E.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Theory -- https://www.theory.com/ -- is a New York-based men's and
women's contemporary fashion label which sells clothes and
accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Faces Tredinnick Sues Over Surrender Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD W. TREDINNICK v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case
No. 4:22-cv-00423-ALM (E.D. Tex., May 18, 2022) is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated asserting
that TransAmerica improperly charged all variable annuity contract
holders with respect to what are called "surrender charges" in
connection with administration of variable annuity contracts issued
by TransAmerica.
According to the complaint, TransAmerica has breached the contracts
it has made with each contract holder, acting uniformly in
violation of the terms and conditions of its variable annuity
contracts.
As a result of the excess partial withdrawals, which were subject
to surrender charge penalties, Tredinnick suffered surrender
charges in excess of the contractual penalty charge amounts. On
contract number 112953TAX, Tredinnick was overcharged $402.42 and
on contract number 112954 Tredinnick was overcharged $398.86, says
the suit.
The Plaintiff alleges that the calculations by Transamerica of such
surrender charges are in excess of the proper amounts that should
have been charged under the terms and conditions of the contract.
As a result, Tredinnick has been damaged, not only by the amount of
the improper charges, but by the reduction in contractual benefits
that is a collateral consequence of the improper charges.
The Plaintiff files this action on behalf of Tredinnick and other
variable annuity contract holders who purchased their contracts
from TransAmerica Life.
TransAmerica Life Insurance Company is a stock life insurance
company and is the company that issued the variable annuity
contracts to Plaintiff.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lewis T. LeClair, Esq.
MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
300 Crescent Court Suite 1500
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 978-4000
Facsimile: (214) 978-4044
lleclair@mckoolsmith.com
- and -
Gary D. Corley, Esq.
Jared T. Elk, Esq.
CORLEY LAW FIRM
108 North Travis Street
Sherman, TX 75090
Telephone: (903) 892-1048
Facsimile: (214) 260-4925
E-mail: garycorley@gcorleylaw.com
jared@gcorleylaw.com
TRUE CLASSIC TEES: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against True Classic Tees
LLC. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. True Classic Tees LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04181 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
True Classic Tees -- https://trueclassictees.com/ -- produce butter
soft, affordable, high quality fitted premium tees for men.[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
TWITTER INC: Musk Manipulates Stock Price, Heresniak Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM HERESNIAK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELON R. MUSK and TWITTER, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03074 (N.D. Cal., May 25, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of California
Corporation Code and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from Defendant Elon Musk's alleged release of false
and misleading statements regarding his proposed buyout of Twitter.
Defendant Musk created a false or misleading appearance with
respect to the market for Twitter stock in order to raise or
depress its price for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale
of Twitter stock by others. As a result of Defendant Musk's
manipulation of the Twitter stock market, the Plaintiff and
similarly situated stockholders suffered economic losses, says the
suit.
Twitter, Inc. is a company that operates a social media platform,
headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
Anne Marie Murphy, Esq.
Tyson C. Redenbarger, Esq.
Julia Q. Peng, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
San Francisco Airport Office Center
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
ammurphy@cpmlegal.com
tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com
jpeng@cpmlegal.com
- and –
Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
Anne B. Beste, Esq.
Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
Nicholas H. Woltering, Esq.
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 914-2001
E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
abeste@bottinilaw.com
achang@bottinilaw.com
ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com
nwoltering@bottinilaw.com
U-LINE CORPORATION: Cadiz Sues Over Supervisors' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOEY CADIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. U-LINE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00616-LA (E.D. Wis., May 24, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime wages and
failure to pay an agreed-upon wage in violation of Fair Labor
Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a supervisor from October
2021 until May 18, 2022.
U-Line Corporation is a refrigeration manufacturer, with its
principal office address located at 8900 North 55th Street,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aquino Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY AQUINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; RAISER, LLC; and
SCHLEUDER, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04267 (S.D.N.Y., May
24, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime wages, and unreimbursed business expenses
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Aquino was employed by the Defendants as Uber driver.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. provides ride hailing services. The Company
develops applications for road transportation, navigation, ride
sharing, and payment processing solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 847-8315
Email: canderson@gslawny.com
Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH LLC
363 Bloomfield Avenue,
Suite 2CMontclair, NJ 07042
Telephone: (973) 259-6990
Facsimile: (866) 848-1368
Email: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com
-and-
Russell S. Warren, Jr.
LAW OFFICES OF RUSSELL S. WARREN, JR.
473 Sylvan Avenue
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
Telephone. (201) 503-0773
Facsimile: (201) 503-0776
Email: mail@rwarrenlaw.com
-and-
David R. Markham, Esq.
THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
888 @ Prospect St., Suite 200
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (619) 399-3995
Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
Email: dmarkham@markhamlaw.com
ULTIMATE CREATIONS: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ultimate Creations
InfiniteAloe, Inc. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Ultimate Creations InfiniteAloe, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03011 (E.D.N.Y., May 23, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ultimate Creations InfiniteAloe, Inc. -- https://infinitealoe.com/
-- offers InfiniteAloe Skin Care that is designed to promote
softer, vibrant, younger looking skin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
UNITED STATES: Black Lives Appeals Judgment in Civil Rights Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Black Lives Matter D.C., et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled BLACK LIVES MATTER
D.C.; TONI SANDERS; J.N.C., through his mother Demetria Bright;
KISHON MCDONALD; GARRETT BOND; and KEARA SCALLAN v. DONALD J.
TRUMP, President of the United States of America; WILLIAM P. BARR,
Attorney General of the United States; MARK ESPER, Secretary of
Defense of the United States; GREGORY T. MONAHAN, Acting Chief of
the United States Park Police; JAMES M. MURRAY, Director, U.S.
Secret Service; MAJOR GENERAL WILLIAM J. WALKE, Commanding General
of the District of Columbia National Guard; GENERAL JAMES C.
MCCONVILLE, Chief of Staff of the United States Army; JOHN DOES
1-100 and JOHN POES 1-20, Case No. 1:20-cv-01469, in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia.
On May 25, 2020, Mr. George Floyd, 46 year-old, was accused of a
non-violent offense and arrested by the Minneapolis police. In the
process of his arrest, Mr. Floyd was handcuffed and fell to the
pavement. Less than ten minutes after the police arrived, a police
officer, who participated in Mr. Floyd's arrest placed his knee and
the weight of his body on Mr. Floyd's neck as Mr. Floyd lay on the
ground. For eight minutes and forty-six seconds, the officer held
his knee on Mr. Floyd's neck as Mr. Floyd pleaded for relief. Other
officers held his legs or stood by and watched while he died.
On June 1, 2020, a group of demonstrators, including the
Plaintiffs, gathered peacefully in Lafayette Square to protest the
gross, systemic injustices perpetrated by law enforcement against
Black people in the United States, exemplified by the recent brutal
murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, a Black woman who was
shot eight times and killed in March 2020 by three Louisville
police officers, who entered her home in the middle of the night
without knocking.
The lawsuit arises from the President and AG's order to use
violence against peaceful demonstrators, who were speaking out
against discriminatory police brutality targeted at Black people.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' actions to shut down
the Lafayette Square demonstration is the manifestation of the very
despotism against which the First Amendment was intended to
protect. The lawsuit seeks to uphold, against uncivil, unwarranted,
unjust, and blatantly unlawful attack, cherished rights enshrined
in the First and Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and
foundational to our Democracy: the rights to peaceful assembly,
petition for redress of grievances, freedom of speech, freedom of
the press, and freedom from unwarranted seizures by the
government.
On May 16, 2022, Judge Friedrich entered Partial Final Judgment in
favor of Defendants against Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs seek a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as Black Lives Matter D.C., et al.
v. William Barr, et al., Case No. 22-5139, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on May
24, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Black Lives Matter D.C.; Toni Sanders;
J.N.C., through his mother Demetria Bright; Kishon McDonald,
Garrett Bond; Keara Scallan; Dustin Foley; E.X.F., through her
father; Dustin Foley, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; and Lia Poteet are represented by:
Dennis A. Corkery, Esq.
WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR
CIVIL RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS
700 14th Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 319-1000
- and -
John A. Freedman, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-3743
Telephone: (202) 942-5000
- and -
Jon M. Greenbaum, Esq.
LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW
1500 K Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 662-8600
- and -
Scott Matthew Michelman, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
915 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 457-0800
Defendants-Appellees William P. Barr, Attorney General of the
United States; Mark Adamchik; Cara Seiberling; Thomas Locasico,
Helmet Number A702; Nicholas Jarmuzewski, Helmet Number A704;
Jeffrey Hendrickson, Helmet Number A706; Sean Cox, Helmet Number
B714; Bryan McDonald, Helmet Number C723; Lawrence Sinacore, Helmet
Number S735; Jonathan Daniels, Arm Patch Number JD97; Luis
Feliciano, Arm Patch Number LP71; Sean Kellenberger, Arm Patch
Number SK10; Robert J. Contee, III, Chief of the Metropolitan
Police Department of the District of Columbia; Jeffery Carroll;
Anthony Alioto; S. Buchanan; First Name Unknown Hargrove; C.W.
Meyer; C.J. Murphy; T.C. Payne; First Name Unknown Taylor; Daniel
Thau; and Anthony A. Willis are represented by:
R. Craig Lawrence, Esq.
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
601 D Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 252-2500
- and -
DOJ Appellate Counsel
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-2000
- and -
Daniel S. Crowley, Esq.
HANNON LAW GROUP, LLP
333 8th Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 232-1907
- and -
Christopher A. Zampogna, Esq.
ZAMPOGNA P.C.
1776 K Street, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 223-6635
- and -
Caroline S. Van Zile, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
400 6th Street, NW, Suite 8100
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 727-3400
UNITED STATES: Murphy Sues Over Unfair American Community Survey
----------------------------------------------------------------
MAUREEN MURPHY and JOHN HUDDLESTON, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, v. GINA RAIMONDO, in her
official capacity as Secretary of Commerce; DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
a federal agency; ROBERT SANTOS, in his official capacity as
Director of the Bureau of the Census; BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, a
federal agency, Case No. 3:22-cv-05377-DG (W.D. Wash., May 24,
2022) claims that Census Bureau lacks the statutory and
constitutional authority to force individuals such as Ms. Murphy
and Mr. Huddleston to answer the American Community Survey's
detailed, intrusive questions.
Maureen Murphy and John Huddleston are two such individuals. They
understand the importance of the decennial Census. They have in the
past and will continue in the future to answer the ten-year Census.
But they oppose the highly detailed and personal information
demanded in the American Community Survey and have refused to
answer it. As a result, they are subject to monetary fines for
doing nothing more than keeping the private details of their lives
private, the lawsuit says.
According to the complaint, the American Community Survey is
different from the decennial or ten-year Census. The decennial
Census is authorized by the Constitution's Enumeration Clause,
which requires an "actual Enumeration" of persons in the United
States every ten years in order to properly apportion congressional
seats among the several states. In other words, to comply with the
Constitution, the Census Bureau must count the actual number of
persons in the United States. Accordingly, sampling, which is a
method for estimating the number of people in a particular category
by questioning only a subset of them, is forbidden for use in place
of an actual enumeration in the decennial Census. Department of
Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316,
343 (1999). Sampling can be used to supplement or check for errors
in the actual enumeration required by the Constitution, but such
surveys must be necessary for enumeration, the suit asserts.
The Department of Commerce is an agency of the United States. The
Bureau of the Census is an agency of the United States. Each
Defendant is charged with administering Title 13 of the United
States Code and conducting the American Community Survey. Each
Defendant, acting in their respective official capacities, has
allegedly compelled Plaintiffs to answer the American Community
Survey, told 18 Plaintiffs in writing that they are required by law
to answer the survey, and threatened them with monetary fines for
refusing to answer it.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian T. Hodges, Esq.
Aditya Dynar, Esq.
Michael Poon, Esq.
PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION
255 South King Street, Suite 800
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (425) 576-0484
E-mail: BHodges@pacificlegal.org
ADynar@pacificlegal.org
MPoon@pacificlegal.org
UNITED STATES: Violates Informed Consent Laws, Servicemen Allege
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA WILSON, MICHAEL GROOTHOUSEN, RYAN MADIGAN, DERRICK GIBSON,
STEVEN BROWN, BENJAMIN WALKER, SCOTT WELLS, BRITTANY PUCKETT, KARYN
CHRISTEN, MICHAEL DOUGHTY, CARLEY GROSS, SUMMER FIELDS, JUSTIN
KING, THOMAS BLANKENSHIP, for themselves and all others similarly
situated, and MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES FOR LIBERTY, an
unincorporated association v. LLOYD AUSTIN, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, JANET WOODCOCK, in her official capacity as
Acting Commissioner of the U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, and
XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Secretary U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Case No. 4:22-cv-00438
(E.D. Tex., May 23, 2022) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief
against the Department of Defense ("DOD") and the Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA"), who are both in gross violation of the
Informed Consent Laws and the applicable provisions of the Public
Health Service Act governing the regulation of biologics, ("PHSA"),
the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), as well as both the FDA's
and DoD’s own rules, regulations, and procedures. Plaintiffs also
seek injunctive relief.
The Plaintiffs comprise a group of servicemen and women, active
duty, Reserve, and guardsmen, all subject to the Department of
Defense ("DoD") COVID-19 "vaccine" mandate issued by the Defendant
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, III on August 24, 2021.
The Plaintiffs allege that the order to receive these non-vaccines
is unconstitutional and unlawful ab initio because it mandates the
injection of unlicensed, experimental products without informed
consent, namely, the mRNA COVID-19 therapeutics developed by
Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna. This right to be free from being
experimented upon against one’s will has been codified in
multiple federal statutes requiring informed consent for any
mandated use of an "unlicensed product," says the Plaintiffs.
In short, the plaintiffs are being forced to take unlicensed,
experimental biologics upon threat of discharge from the military
under dishonor and being branded with less than fully honorable
discharges for exercising their inalienable, God-given rights by
the interlinked, co-dependent, and unlawful actions and inactions
of all of these agencies, the suit added.
The class of plaintiffs includes all members of the United States
Armed Forces (i.e., Air Force, Army, Marine Corps and Navy),
Active, Reserve, and Guard, who are and have been subject to
Defendant Secretary Austin’s unlawful COVID-19 vaccine mandate
("DOD Mandate Class" or "DOD Mandate Plaintiffs").[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jerri Lynn Ward, Esq.
GARLO WARD, P.C.
1017 Rose Circle
College Station, TX 77840
Telephone: (512) 302-1103
E-mail: jward@garloward.com
- and -
Dale Saran, Esq.
19744 W 116th Terrace
Olathe, KS 66061
Telephone: (480) 466-0369
E-mail: dalesaran@gmail.com
- and -
Brandon Johnson, Esq.
DEFENDING THE REPUBLIC
2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 707-1775
E-mail: bcj@defendingtherepublic.org
VIEW INC: Faces Damidi Suit Over Artificially Inflated Stock Price
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANIL DAMIDI, derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant VIEW,
INC., Plaintiff v. RAO MULPURI, NIGEL GORMLY, HAROLD HUGHES, TOM
LEPPERT, TOBY COSGROVE, LISA PICARD, JULIE LARSON-GREEN, and VIDUL
PRAKASH, Defendants, and VIEW, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00675-UNA (D. Del., May 24, 2022) is a shareholder
derivative action against the Defendants for violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, for aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of
corporate assets.
According to the complaint, the Individual Defendants caused the
company to, and/or failed to prevent it from, issuing materially
false and misleading statements concerning its financial results
for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2020, as well as the
quarter ended March 31, 2021. Additionally, the company failed to
disclose material adverse facts about its business, operations, and
prospects, including that: (i) it had not properly accrued warranty
costs related to its product; (ii) there was a material weakness in
its internal controls over accounting and financial reporting
related to warranty accrual; (iii) as a result, its financial
results for prior periods were materially misstated; and (iv) as a
result of the foregoing, its positive statements about its
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of the Defendants'
misconduct, the market price of View common stock was artificially
inflated. In addition, the Individual Defendants' misconduct has
subjected the company to costs incurred in connection with View's
internal investigations, wasting of corporate assets, and enabled
the Individual Defendants who were improperly overcompensated by
the company, to unjustly enrich themselves, says the suit.
View, Inc. is an American glass-manufacturing company, with its
principal executive offices located in Milpitas, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
Herbert W. Mondros, Esq.
RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
hwm@rl-legal.com
WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Seeks to Stay Getchel Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEAH GETCHEL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WAKEFIELD &
ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-02436-MSN-atc (W.D. Tenn.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting their motion to
stay and defer consideration of the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
Wakefield & Associates is a financial services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39Syoui at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Reba Brown, Esq.
LEWIS THOMASON, P.C.
424 Church Street, Suite 2500
P.O. Box 198615
Nashville, TN 37219-8615
Telephone: (615) 259-1366
Facsimile: (615) 259-1389
E-mail: rbrown@lewisthomason.com
- and -
Justin H. Homes, Esq.
Bradley J. St. Angelo, Esq.
Sessions Israel & Shartle, LLC
3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70002
Telephone: (504) 828-3700
E-mail: jhomes@sessions.legal
bstangelo@sessions.legal
WATER DAMAGE: Holloway Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Water Damage Rescue,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Marvin Glenn Holloway, on behalf
of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Water
Damage Rescue, Inc., Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2022-00319781-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 10, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Water Damage Rescue Inc. -- http://waterdamagerescue.com/--
provides 24/7 emergency services for homes and businesses hit by
floods and leak.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600
San Diego, CA 92121-6720
Phone: 619-255-9047
Fax: 858-404-9203
Email: shani@zakaylaw.com
WATER PRO: Perez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janierky Perez and other similarly situated individuals v. Water
Pro LLC and Matthew Socarraz, individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-21574
(S.D. Fla., May 20, 2022) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
regular and overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, and all other current and former employees similarly
situated to Plaintiff, worked over 40 hours during one or more
weeks on or after November 2021, without being compensated overtime
wages pursuant to the FLSA, the lawsuit says
Corporate Defendant Water Pro is a water treatment company.
Defendant sells and installs water treatment equipment and
supplies. Defendant also provides water testing services,
maintenance, and repairs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
WEGMANS FOOD: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wegmans Food Markets,
Inc. The case is styled as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Scully Company, Inc., Case No.
2:22-cv-01844-TJS (E.D. Pa., May 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. -- https://www.wegmans.com/ -- is a
privately held American supermarket chain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1640
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Phone: (215) 981-5400
Email: dglanzberg@aol.com
WELLS FARGO: Price Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Telephone Bankers
---------------------------------------------------------------
JANISHA LEE PRICE and CARMEN ZAMARIPPA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO &
COMPANY and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-mc-80127 (N.D. Cal., May 25, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the
California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay regular
wage, failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu
thereof, failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu
thereof, failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, failure
to pay all wages upon termination, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and unfair business practices.
Ms. Price worked as a mortgage customer service representative and
a home loan processor at the Defendants' call center in San
Bernardino, California.
Ms. Zamarripa worked as a telephone banker at the Defendants' call
center in El Monte, California from September 2012 to February
2021.
Wells Fargo & Company is an American multinational financial
services company, headquartered in San Francisco, California.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a banking firm based in South Dakota.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C.
591 Telegraph Canyon Road, #376
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Telephone: (805) 618-2934
E-mail: christina@chumphreylaw.com
- and –
Richard E. Quintilone, II, Esq.
Jeffrey T. Green, Esq.
QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
Lake Forest, CA 92630
Telephone: (949) 458-9675
Facsimile: (949) 458-9679
E-mail: req@quintlaw.com
jtg@quintlaw.com
WHALENECK MARINA: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whaleneck Marina
Power Sports LLC. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Whaleneck
Marina Power Sports LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04146 (S.D.N.Y., May 20,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Whaleneck Marina Power Sports --
https://www.whaleneckmarinapowersports.com/ -- is a full service
marina and authorized Yamaha Watercraft dealer.[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
WHITNEY MUSEUM: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whitney Museum of
American Art. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Whitney Museum of
American Art, Case No. 1:22-cv-04245-PGG (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Whitney Museum of American Art, known informally as "The
Whitney" -- https://whitney.org/ -- is an art museum in the
Meatpacking District and West Village neighborhoods of Manhattan in
New York City.[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
WILD FRIENDS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wild Friends Foods,
Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Wild Friends Foods, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-04244-LJL (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wild Friends -- https://wildfriendsfoods.com/ -- is a
mission-driven, female-founded natural foods company.[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
WORLD AUTOMOTIVE: May Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against World Automotive
Joliet LLC. The case is styled as Jamal May, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. World Automotive Joliet LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02530 (E.D. Pa., May 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
World Automotive Joliet -- https://www.worldkiajoliet.com/ -- is a
Kia dealer in Joliet, Illinois and offers auto service and oil
changes for all cars sold.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Matthew Thomas, Esq.
ADVOCATE ATTORNEYS LLP
440 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1110
Chicago, IL 60605
Phone: (708) 294-3900
Email: jmthomaslawfile@gmail.com
WSP USA: Nolau Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL NOLAU, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. WSP USA INC.; and other individuals or entities related
to the same, Case No. 1:22-cv-04276 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2022) seeks
to recover unpaid wages, including damages for delinquent wage
payments made to workers who qualify as manual laborers and who
were employed by Defendant WSP USA INC., and any other individuals
or entities related to the same between October 2015 and the
present in the State of New York, as well as monies owed for
failing to compensate workers for all time worked, including hours
that qualify as overtime hours and which would require overtime
compensation pursuant to New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate
workers like Plaintiffs with all prevailing wage payments,
including by utilizing various payment schemes to avoid proper
compensation, e.g., by paying through different corporate entities
for the same work and same tasks to avoid proper wage
compensation.
The Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of failing to
pay their employees for all hours worked. Throughout the Relevant
Period, Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers engaged in
manual labor braving the outdoor elements during the ordinary
course of their work for the Defendants, the suit says.
Despite working more than 40 hours per week, Defendants failed to
compensate Plaintiff Nolau at the proper overtime rate for all
hours worked above 40 hours per week, including at the proper
overtime and double time rates in accordance with the applicable
prevailing wage schedule, added the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
Sean M. O'Hara, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: www.leedsbrownlaw.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 ***