/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220608.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, June 8, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 108
Headlines
13 SCENTS: Hernandez Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
316 TOWING: Faces Hyde Suit Over Unpaid Overtime for Drivers
3M COMPANY: Singleton Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Chemicals
AEGIS SENIOR: Bid to Dismiss Related Cases in Melgoza Tossed
AETNA LIFE: Prolow Seeks Bifurcated Briefing of Class Cert.
ALLERGAN INC: Class Cert Bid & Summary Judgment Filing Extended
ALLIED PROPERTY: DICSP Suit Transferred to Fla. Cir. Ct.
ALLIED RESTORATION: Underpays Superintendents, Smiertelny Claims
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Sets Class Cert. Deadlines in Lopez Suit
AMERICAN FIRST: Andrade Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
APPLE INC: Duarte Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in California
ARGENT TRUST: Seeks Minimal Redactions of May 26 Order
ARS NATIONAL SERVICES: Cardona Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
BAE SYSTEMS: Class Action Settlement in Cordova Wins Final Nod
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Seeks Dismissal of Sidhu Class Action
BETTY LOU'S: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Cruz Class Suit
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Patlan, et al., Seek Class Certification
BODY & POLE: Johnson Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
BOWL AMERICA: Court Trims Claims in Zucker's 2nd Amended Complaint
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Settlement Class in Ide Gets Initial Certification
CAPITAL ONE: Mensah FDUTPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
CARTER'S INC: Gutierrez Files Suit Over Untimely Payment of Wages
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Class Cert Bid Hearing Continued to June 13
CORECIVIC INC: Ct. Extends Dispositive Bid Deadline in Barrientos
COSAN CONSTRUCTION: Sanchez Must Amend Complaint by June 10
DOW AGROSCIENCES: Rice Farmers Seek to Certify Classes
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Torres Must File Class Cert. Bid by Oct. 6
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Torres Seeks Extension to File Class Cert.
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Class Cert Filing Deadline Continued to Oct. 1
EXPRESS COLLECTIONS: Kessler FDCPA Suit Removed to D. Wyoming
GAS GATHERING: Lyman FLSA Suit Moved From D. Minn. to W.D. Tex.
GEICO: Schwarzmann Files Bid for Conditional Certification
GEORGIA-CAROLINA: Yarbrough et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
GIORGIO ARMANI: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Hasty Suit Claims
GIRLS GALORE: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
GOOGLE LLC: Class Settlement in Antitrust Suit Initially OK'd
GREENSKY MANAGEMENT: Loses Bid for Judgment on Pleadings
HARMONY GROUP: Fails to Sufficiently Pay OT Premiums, Cagle Says
HEALTHY PAWS: Court Modifies Case Schedule in Benanav Class Suit
HEAVEN HILL: Quezada Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
HERBALIFE LTD: Lavigne, et al., Seek Initial Approval of Settlement
HOME HEALTH CARE: Mallett Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HOMEADVISOR INC: Airquip, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
HOMEADVISOR INC: Wins Bid to Restrict Access to Docket Nos. 557
IONQ INC: Faces Leacock Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
IRONBOUND EXPRESS: Approval of Class Notice Form Granted in Part
JACOBY & MEYERS: Harding Seeks Reconsideration of May 13 Order
JONES LANG: Faces Amaya Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
JUMPP LOGISTICS: Cervenka Seeks to Certify Delivery Driver Class
JUSTICEWORKS YOUTHCARE: Shoop's Bid for Conditional Cert. Denied
LB ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Onyeneho Claims
LEXINGTON LAW: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to June 23
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Fifth Amended Calendar Order Entered in Middleton
LUCID GROUP: Faces Goel Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
MDL 2918: Case Schedule Amended in HHD Suspension Antitrust Suit
MDL 2966: Discovery, Scheduling Order Entered in Antitrust Suit
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Sinelli Sues Over Failure to Disclose Defect
MLD MORTGAGE: Parties Seek to Stay Class Certification Judgment
NATIONAL CREDIT: Court Grants Swanson's Class Certification Bid
NATIONAL SPINE: Allowed Leave to File Sur-Reply in Scoma Suit
NATIONAL WILDLIFE: E.R. Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
NELNET INC: Seeks Temporary Stay of Class Certification Bid
NETFLIX INC: Faces Cleveland Bakers Suit Over Drop in Share Price
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Time to File Class Cert Briefing Extended in Price
NEW YORK, NY: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Dunn Suit
NINJARMM LLC: Van Vlack Seeks to Certify FLSA Class Action
NISUN INTERNATIONAL: Shareholder Suit in NY Dismissed
PENNSYLVANIA: Court Grants Application for Damages in MFW v. PLCB
PENNSYLVANIA: Objection to Judgment in Log Cabin v. PLCB Overruled
PENSKE TRUCK: Brown Seeks to Conditionally Certify Collective
PERFECT PATTERNS: Scheduling Order Entered in Daly Class Suit
PINGORA LOAN: Garcia Suit Moved From E.D. Cal. to S.D. Fla.
PRIMERICA LIFE: Pretrial & Trial Dates Continued in Palmer Suit
PROPETRO HOLDING: OFPR, et al., Seek Class Certification
ROBERT HAMMER: Zelaya, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
SHAMROCK CABINET: Millett, et al., Seek to Certify FLSA Class
STROM ENGINEERING: Smith Seeks Extension to Oppose Objections
SUMMIT MEDICAL: Class Certification Order in Coleman Suit Reversed
TIMESHARE HELP: Scheduling Order Entered in Perrong Class Suit
TRAEGER PELLET: Yates Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Bid
TRAEGER PELLET: Yates, Jones File Bid for Class Certification
TRANSWORLD SYSTEM: Hoffman Bid for Class Status Renoted to Sept. 2
TROON GOLF: Kennedy Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California
TYSON FOODS: 3 Classes Certified in Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Parties Seeks to Amend Discovery, Sched Order
WELLS FARGO: Hartsock Sues Over Unauthorized Transactions on Zelle
WHITING PETROLEUM: Faces Siegfried Suit Over Proposed Merger
WILLIAM CROUCH: Fain, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
WYNN RESORTS: Schuster Files Bid for Class Certification
WYZE LABS: Hepworth Sues Over Wyze Cam's Security Vulnerability
*********
13 SCENTS: Hernandez Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
YUSELL ANGEL HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 13 SCENTS, INC. d/b/a DOSSIER,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-21683 (S.D. Fla., June 1, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation
Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged transmission of
telephonic sales calls to the Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers in an attempt to promote its goods and services without
obtaining their prior express written consent. As a result of the
Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have been
harmed, including violations of their statutory rights, statutory
damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy, says
the suit.
13 Scents, Inc., doing business as Dossier, is a company that
manufactures perfumes and scented products, headquartered in New
York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and –
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
316 TOWING: Faces Hyde Suit Over Unpaid Overtime for Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------
DUSTIN HYDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 316 TOWING & ROAD SERVICE, INC. and MAKSIM
LISOVSKIY, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00103-RWS (N.D. Ga., June
1, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated drivers overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Hyde was employed as a driver from December of 2018 until April
of 2022.
316 Towing & Road Service, Inc. is a towing company based in
Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick Wilson, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: patrick@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
- and –
Matthew W. Herrington, Esq.
DELONG, CALDWELL, BRIDGERS, FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN
101 Marietta Street, Suite 2650
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 979-3150
E-mail: matthew.herrington@dcbflegal.com
3M COMPANY: Singleton Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Chemicals
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Singleton, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY fka
MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC.;
KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS,
LP; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100,
INCLUSIVE;, Case No. 2:22-cv-01602-RMG (D.S.C., May 19, 2022), is
brought involving highly toxic chemicals which have earned the
designation "the forever chemicals" because they do not breakdown
and their insidious nature allows them to travel through soil and
into groundwater while maintaining their deadly nature for
decades.
This action deals with Aqueous Film Forming Foams ("AFFF") that
were designed, manufactured and sold as firefighting compounds.
AFFF compounding includes Perfluoro octane Sulfonate (commonly
known as "PFOS"), PerfluorooctanoicAcid (commonly known as "PFOA"),
and/or other Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (together, with
PFOS and PFOA, commonly known as "PFAS") which are manmade
organofluorine compounds (in this case commonly referred to as
fluorinated surfactants/fluorocarbon surfactants). The compounds
are designed to lower the surface tension of water so as to create
a firefighting foam to quell/smother (cutting off oxygen), for
example, jet fuel fires.
AFFF is created by mixing fluorine-free hydrocarbon foaming
substances (chemical agents designed for a particular purpose) with
fluorinated surfactants and mixing that with water which creates an
aqueous film, i.e.: Aqueous Film Forming Foams ("AFFF"). The
manufacturing processes involved in this action are asserted to
have used fluorocarbon surfactants which are believed to include
PFOS and PFOA (and/or other per fluorinated compounds known as
"PFC"' are also believed to be in the mix. PFC's are posited to
break down in PFOS and PFOA).
The Plaintiff was a USMC dependent spouse stationed at Lejeune
(1977-1978). She lived on Base using and drinking the water. Camp
Lejeune has a PFAS contamination up to 172,748ppt [EPA 70ppt]. In
2003, Singleton was diagnosed with kidney cancer and commenced
on-going medical treatment inclusive of a nephrectomy. As known by
Defendants, kidney cancer is a disease linked to PFAS
contamination. The Plaintiff did not discover that PFAS was a cause
of the harm until very late Spring 2020, when she saw internet
information, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a dependent of her late husband, Brad Singleton,
a member of the U.S. Marines, who during his service was stationed
at Camp Lejeune, a military installation identified as being
contaminated through use of the toxic chemicals which are the
subject of this action.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Phone: (760) 479-5404
Email: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and -
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Phone: (978) 458-0507
Email: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and -
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (800) 934-2921
Email: kon@kyroslaw.com
AEGIS SENIOR: Bid to Dismiss Related Cases in Melgoza Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELA MELGOZA, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. AEGIS SENIOR
COMMUNITIES LLC D/B/A AEGIS LIVING, Case No. 3:22-cv-01756-LB (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order denying motion
to dismiss and consolidating related cases.
The related Salonga and Melgoza actions are consolidated under the
lowest case number, 22-cv-00525-LB. The plaintiffs must file a
consolidated complaint within 28 days from the date of this order.
The consolidated complaint will become the operative complaint and
shall supersede all previous complaints filed in either of the
related actions.
The actions (1) involve similar questions of law and fact (namely
whether the defendant has violated California wage-and-hour laws)
and (2) are at a similar stage. Furthermore, no party has opposed
consolidation or identified any inconvenience, delay, or expense
that could result from consolidation. Thus, the court consolidates
these related cases and denies the defendant's request to dismiss
or stay under the first-to-file rule.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xglgZ9 at no extra charge.[CC]
AETNA LIFE: Prolow Seeks Bifurcated Briefing of Class Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON PROLOW and MARK
LEMMERMAN, on and behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
9:20-cv-80545-KAM (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant Aetna asks the Court
to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26
and 23(b):
1. establishing a process for bifurcated briefing of class
certification; and
2. amending the current Scheduling Order.
The individual plaintiffs are seeking to certify a class based
entirely on a single claim for denial of health benefits under
Section 502(a)(1)(B) of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA), as Plaintiffs' previously asserted claim for breach
of fiduciary duty under Section 502(a)(3) has been dismissed.
Aetna believes that the uncontroverted facts, this Court's summary
judgment rulings on the named plaintiffs' claims, and the
procedural posture of this case, create an environment where an
initial review of certain aspects of the class certification
standard may significantly benefit the parties, absent class
members, and the Court.
Aetna offers health insurance, as well as dental, vision and other
plans.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 1, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xbuzZi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Ardith Bronson, Esq.
Maia Sevilla-Sharon, Esq.
Brian Benjet, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 423-8527
E-mail: ardith.bronson@dlapiper.com
maia.sevillasharon@dlapiper.com
brian.benjet@dlapiper.com
- and -
Mark C. Nielsen, Esq.
Jon W. Breyfogle, Esq.
Paul J. Rinefierd, Esq.
GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED
1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 861-5429
E-mail: mcn@groom.com
jwb@groom.com
prinefierd@groom.com
ALLERGAN INC: Class Cert Bid & Summary Judgment Filing Extended
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAY WEISBEIN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLERGAN, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, Case No. 8:20-cv-00801-FMO-ADS (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order that the
deadlines to file the motions for class certification and summary
judgment are extended by 28 days, to August 8, 2022 and September
8, 2022, respectively.
Allergan was an American global pharmaceutical company focused on
eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical aesthetics,
breast enhancement, obesity intervention and urologics. Allergan,
Inc. was formed in 1948, incorporated in 1950 and became a public
company in 1970.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q10Z10 at no extra charge.[CC]
ALLIED PROPERTY: DICSP Suit Transferred to Fla. Cir. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Diagnostic Imaging Consultants of St.
Petersburg, P.A. d/b/a Diagnostic Imaging Consultants, MRI
Associates Of Bradenton, LLC, MRI Associates Of St. Pete d/a/a
Saint Pete MRI and MRI Associates Of Venice, LLC, as assignee,
individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated v.
Allied Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Depositors Insurance
Company, Nationwide Insurance Company Of America, Titan Insurance
Company, Victoria Fire & Casualty Company And Victoria Select
Insurance Company, was transferred to the Florida County Court,
Hillsborough County on May 18, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 22-CA-004325 to the
proceeding.
The case type is stated as "Business Transactions."
Allied Property & Casualty Insurance Co operates as an insurance
company. The Company provides property and casualty insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lorca J. Divale, Esq.
THE PHYSICIAN COLLECTIONS GROUP, P.A.
701 S. Howard Ave., Ste 106-391
Tampa, Florida 33606
Phone: (813) 600-3029
Email: LorcaDLG@gmail.com
- and -
Steven L. Brannock, Esq.
BRANNOCK HUMPHRIES & BERMAN
1111 W Cass St Ste 200
Tampa, FL 33606-1308
Phone: 813-223-4300
Cell: 813-223-4300
Fax: 813-262-0604
Email: sbrannock@bhappeals.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Edward Keenan Cottrell, Esq.
SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
50 N Laura St Ste 2600
Jacksonville, FL 32202-3629
Phone: 904-598-6132
Fax: 904-598-6232
Email: ecottrell@sgrlaw.com
ALLIED RESTORATION: Underpays Superintendents, Smiertelny Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEE SMIERTELNY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIED RESTORATION SERVICES, INC.;
OP D. ALMAREZ; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 22STCV18086 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 1, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code's Private Attorneys' General Act, the
California's Public Policy, and the California's Business and
Professions Code including wrongful termination, retaliation,
failure to pay wages, failure to reimburse expenses, improper
deductions and illegal self-help, failure to timely issue final
wages and accurate and itemized wage statement, defamation, and
unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a superintendent from
October 2018 until her termination on June 1, 2020.
Allied Restoration Services, Inc. is a provider of water damage
restoration service in West Covina, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard B. Rudolph, Esq.
RUDOLPH & CHONOLES, LLP
20241 SW Birch St., Suite 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 825-5210
E-mail: RRudolph@RCattorneys.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Sets Class Cert. Deadlines in Lopez Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lopez, et al v. Amazon.com
Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02317 (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Eric I.
Long entered an order vacating the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference
set for June 9, 2022 and setting the following deadlines are set:
-- initial disclosures due: Aug. 1, 2022
-- Amended pleadings and joinder Sept. 1, 2022
of parties due:
-- The Plaintiff's deadline to Sept. 1, 2023
disclose experts and provide
expert reports:
-- The Plaintiff shall make experts Oct. 13, 2023
available for deposition by:
-- The Defendant's deadline to Sept. 1, 2023
disclose experts and provide
expert reports is:
-- The Defendant shall disclose Oct. 27, 23
rebuttal experts by:
-- The Defendant shall make Dec. 1, 2023
experts available for
deposition by:
-- The Plaintiff's deadline to June 30, 2023
file a motion for class
certification is:
-- Discovery closes: Dec. 1, 2023
-- Case dispositive motions due: Jan 16, 2024
-- Final Pretrial Conference June 10, 2024
set for:
The nature of suit states diversity fraud.
Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company which
focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, and
artificial intelligence.[CC]
AMERICAN FIRST: Andrade Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA ANDRADE, et al., v.
AMERICAN FIRST FINANCE, INC., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-06743-SK
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff Andrade asks the Court to enter an order
certifying the following class under Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3)
for the period from November 11, 2014 through the present:
"All California residents who purchased consumer goods from
AFF affiliated retail businesses and who AFF claims are or
were bound to the terms of its Security Agreement during the
Class Period."
American First is a consumer financial technology company that
provides alternatives to traditional retail lending service.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 31,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3miyrm2
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Green, Esq.
James Robert Noblin, Esq.
Emrah M. Sumer, Esq.
GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
Larkspur, CA 94939
Telephone: (415) 477-6700
Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com
- and -
Alicia Hinton, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF A.L. HINTON
1616 W. Shaw Ave., Suite B7
Fresno, CA 93711
Telephone: (559) 691-6900
Facsimile: (559) 421-0373
E-mail: alicia@alhintonlaw.com
- and -
James C. Sturdevant, Esq.
THE STURDEVANT LAW FIRM, APC
4040 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200
San Rafael, CA 94903
Telephone: (415) 477-2410
Facsimile: (415) 492-2810
E-mail: jsturdevant@sturdevantlaw.com
APPLE INC: Duarte Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
DIEGO MEJIA DUARTE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC. and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 22STCV17978 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., June 1, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys' General Act including failure to include additional
renumeration when calculating overtime wages, failure to pay meal
period premium wages, failure to pay rest period premium wages,
failure to timely pay earned wages during employment, failure to
provide complete and accurate wage statements, and failure to
timely pay all unpaid wages following separation of employment.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
from September 2018 until his termination on November 1, 2021.
Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Melissa A. Huether, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
mhuether@lelawfirm.com
ARGENT TRUST: Seeks Minimal Redactions of May 26 Order
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACKIE LYSENGEN, on behalf
of the Morton Buildings, Inc. Leveraged Employee Stock Ownership
Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly
situated, v. ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, JAN ROUSE, EDWARD C. MILLER,
GETZ FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ESTATE OF HENRY A. GETZ, and its
beneficiaries and successors, and ESTATE OF VIRGINIA MILLER, and
its beneficiaries and successors.Case No. 1:20-cv-01177-MMM-JEH
(C.D. Ill.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
granting its requests for minimal redactions to the publicly-filed
version of the Court's May 26, 2022 Order and Opinion denying
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
As Argent argued in its motion to seal in connection with its
opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification, that
assessment of Morton Buildings' share value constitutes
confidential proprietary business information because if revealed
to competitors the disclosure could put Morton Buildings at a
competitive disadvantage.
Argent is filing under seal contemporaneously with this request a
version of the Court's Order with the requested redaction on page
four.
Argent is a state-chartered independent trust company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 1, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xn59cc at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Russell, Esq.
Barbara A. Smith, Esq.
Jacob B. Simon, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
One Metropolitan Square
211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 259-2000
E-mail: jsrussell@bclplaw.com
barbara.smith@bclplaw.com
Jacob.simon@bclplaw.com
ARS NATIONAL SERVICES: Cardona Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Cardona, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARS National
Services, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-03276 (D.N.J., May 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
ARS National Services, Inc. -- https://www.arsnational.com/ -- is a
proven leader in the accounts receivable management industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christofer Merritt, Esq.
STEIN SAKS LLC
1 University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (540) 907-8248
Email: cmerritt@SteinSaksLegal.com
BAE SYSTEMS: Class Action Settlement in Cordova Wins Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AIMEE CORDOVA,
Individually and on Behalf of Other Members of the Public
Similarly Situated, v. BAE SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS & SERVICES,
INC.; and DOES 1–10, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 3:20-cv-02425-JLS-MDD
(S.D. CaL.), the Hon. Judge entered an order:
1. granting plaintiff's unopposed motions for (a) final
approval of class action settlement and (b) attorneys'
fees and costs; and
2. entering judgment.
-- Proposed Settlement Class
The Settlement Class includes "any and all persons who
are or were employed by Defendants as Forensic Analysts
(of any level and all similar positions however
titled), in the State of California during the Covered
Period."
-- Proposed Monetary Relief
The Proposed Settlement Agreement provides for a
$995,000.00 Maximum Settlement Amount used to pay: (1)
Plaintiff's Class Representative's Payment, not to
exceed $10,000.00; (2) Class Counsel's attorneys' fee
award, not to exceed thirty percent of the Maximum
Settlement Amount, or $298,500.00; (3) up to $15,000.00
in Class Counsel costs; (4) a $30,000.00 PAGA award,
with $22,500.00 going to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency (the “LWDA”) and
$7,500.00
going to the Class Members; and (5) Settlement
Administration Costs, estimated not to exceed
$3,500.00. The remaining Net Settlement Amount of at
least $645,000.00 shall be distributed to the
Settlement Class Members. The Proposed Settlement
Agreement provides that Phoenix Settlement
Administrators shall serve as Settlement Administrator.
-- Settlement Administration Expenses
The Settlement further authorizes the deduction of up
to $3,500.00 from the Maximum Settlement Amount for the
administration costs incurred by the Settlement
Administrator. Proposed Settlement Agreement. Class
Counsel seek approval of 19 administration expenses in
the amount of $3,500.00 to the Settlement
Administrator.
-- PAGA Award
Finally, the Settlement provides for a $30,000.00 PAGA
award, with $22,500.00 going to the LWDA and $7,500.00
reverting to the Class Members. Proposed Settlement
Agreement. The Plaintiff requests approval of the PAGA
award.
On November 12, 2020, Plaintiff Aimee Cordova filed a class action
suit in California Superior Court alleging violations of
California's Labor and Business and Professions Codes as well as
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") on behalf
of forensic analysts employed by the Defendants.
On December 11, 2020, Defendants removed Plaintiff's Complaint to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California. The Defendants concurrently answered the Complaint. On
January 22, 2021, the Parties jointly moved to dismiss Defendant
BAE Systems, Inc., without prejudice, which motion was granted. On
13 June 10, 2021, remaining named Defendant BAE Systems Technology
& Services, Inc.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misclassified forensic analyst
employees as exempt and alleges fifteen causes of action as a
result under various provisions of California and federal law.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3taz4SH at no extra charge.[CC]
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Seeks Dismissal of Sidhu Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRIYA SIDHU, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Bayer Healthcare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-01603-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Bayer
asks the Court to enter an order dismissing the Complaint in its
entirety or in the alternative, dismissing or striking Plaintiff's
class allegations.
The Plaintiff Sidhu brings suit against Bayer Healthcare, alleging
that the company failed to warn Plaintiff and putative class
members that the intrauterine contraceptive, Mirena, causes breast
cancer.
This claim is misguided on the facts and the law. On the facts, she
claims that none of Bayer's Mirena materials discuss a potential
breast cancer risk, despite the fact that the Mirena prescribing
information includes no less than 10 references to breast cancer,
including a contraindication and warning, all of which were
approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and are based
prevailing science.
The Plaintiff is a California resident who was prescribed and used
Mirena between February 2019 and February 2022. She seeks to
represent a class defined as all persons in the United States who
were prescribed and used Mirena, as well as a subclass of
California residents.
Bayer Healthcare distributes Mirena.
Mirena and Alleged Breast Cancer Risk Mirena is an FDA-approved,
intrauterine prescription contraceptive.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 26, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zkWTej at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Isabelle L. Ord, Esq.
Alexander E. Wolf, Esq.
Christopher G. Campbell, Esq.
Ilana H. Eisenstein, Esq.
Thomas J. Szivos, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
Telephone: (415) 836-2500
Facsimile: (415) 836-2501
E-mail: isabelle.ord@us.dlapiper.com
alexander.wolf@us.dlapiper.com
christopher.campbell@us.dlapiper.com
ilana.eisenstein@us.dlapiper.com
thomas.szivos@us.dlapiper.com
BETTY LOU'S: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Cruz Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAEL CRUZ, Individually,
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. BETTY LOU'S,
INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-09952-JPC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge John P.
Cronan entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order:
-- All fact discovery shall be Sept. 28, 2022
completed no later than:
-- Initial requests for production June 30, 2022
of documents shall be served by:
-- All expert discovery, including Nov. 11, 2022
expert depositions, shall be
completed no later than:
-- Plaintiff proposes that his October 28, 2022
Class certification motion be
filed by:
A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aHTTyt at no extra charge.[CC]
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Patlan, et al., Seek Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATLAN, et al v. BMW OF
NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-09546-CCC-ESK (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion
for class certification, appointment of class cepresentatives, and
appointment of class counsel.
BMW of North America, LLC, markets and sells motor vehicles.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 27,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3argsqP
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James C. Shah, Esq.
Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
2 Hudson Place, Suite 100
Hoboken, NJ 07030
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: nfinkelman@millershah.com
jcshah@millershah.com
- and -
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
- and -
Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N.
NESMITH LLC
363 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 2C
Montclair, NJ 07042
Telephone: (973) 259-6990
E-mail: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com
- and -
Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
Oren Giskan, Esq.
GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
217 Centre Street, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 847-8315
E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com
ogiskan@gslawny.com
- and -
Cory L. Zajdel, Esq
Z LAW, LLC
2345 York Road, Suite #B-13
Timonium, MD 21903
Telephone: (443) 213-1977
E-mail: clz@zlawmaryland.com
- and -
Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
Randee M. Matloff, Esq.
NAGEL RICE LLP
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 618-0400
E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com
rmatloff@nagelrice.com
BODY & POLE: Johnson Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGHAN PIPER JOHNSON,
REBECCA PARDUE and RODENELLIE PLUVIOSE, on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated, v. BODY & POLE, INC. and KYRA
JOHANNESEN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00857-VS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action and authorizing notice
to be issued to all persons similarly situated.
Body & Pole offers in-studio and online classes for dance.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 31, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zz8S8r at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin Rudolph Delson, Esq.
Alexander Granovsky, Esq.
GRANOVSKY & SUNDARESH PLLC
48 Wall Street, 11th Fl.
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (646) 524-6001
E-mail: delson@g-s-law.com
ag@g-s-law.com
BOWL AMERICA: Court Trims Claims in Zucker's 2nd Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANITA G. ZUCKER, TRUSTEE OF THE ANITA G. ZUCKER TRUST
DATED APRIL 4, 2007, AS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED OR RESTATED, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. BOWL AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Case
No. SAG-21-01967 (D. Md.), Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland grants in part and
denies in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Class Action Complaint.
I. Introduction
Lead Plaintiffs Anita G. Zucker, Trustee of the Anita G. Zucker
Trust Dated April 4, 2007, as Subsequently Amended or Restated, and
Anita G. Zucker, Trustee of the Article 6 Marital Trust, Under the
First Amended and Restated Jerry Zucker Revocable Trust dated April
2, 2007, filed the putative class action against Defendants Bowl
America ("the Company"), Bowlero Corp., Duff & Phelps Securities
LLC, Cheryl Dragoo, Allan Sher, Merle Fabian, Gloria Bragg, Nancy
Hull, and Ruth Macklin, alleging violations of state and federal
law arising from Bowlero's acquisition of Bowl America. The
Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. The issues
have been fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary.
II. Background
Bowl America was a publicly traded Maryland corporation founded in
1958 during a post-World War II era of bowling enthusiasm. Leslie
Goldberg became Bowl America's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") in
1976, ushering in a period of sustained corporate flourishing
through an emphasis on real property investments. In 2018, in light
of Goldberg's declining health, Bowl America's Board of Directors
("Board") -- comprised of Dragoo, Sher, Hull, Fabian, Macklin, and
Bragg (collectively, "Director Defendants") -- began exploring the
Company's long-term strategic future. In January, 2019, Dragoo
succeeded Goldberg to the role of CEO. The Board subsequently
amended and restated Dragoo's employment agreement to include a
lump sum cash payment of $400,000 ("Change-of-Control Payment") to
Dragoo in the event of a change of control of the Company. Upon
Goldberg's passing, his stock holdings transferred to his sister,
Fabian, resulting in her having majority voting control of the
Company.
To explore the Company's strategic options, the Board retained
Foley & Lardner LLP and Duff & Phelps Securities LLC ("D&P") as its
outside counsel and merger and acquisition advisor, respectively.
The Board also appointed Dragoo and Sher to lead any potential
sales process on behalf of the Company. Between November, 2019 and
March, 2020, D&P contacted over 132 prospective buyers, including
"a mix of strategic companies, financial sponsors, and real
estate-oriented investors." The Company subsequently entered
confidentiality agreements and provided evaluation materials to 35
of those parties. In February, 2020, the Board entered negotiations
with four potential buyers: Bowlero, Party X, Party Y, and Party
Z.
On Jan. 12, 2021, Bowlero and Bowl America entered a non-binding
letter of intent for a total value of $44 million and a 90-day
exclusivity period. Over the next several months, Bowlero, Bowl
America, and their respective representatives exchanged draft
merger agreements, conducted diligence, and negotiated material
provisions of the prospective acquisition.
On May 27, 2021, the Board met to consider the revised merger
agreement, which contemplated an offer price of $44 million plus a
$3 million dividend. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, all
holders of Class A and Class B common stock would receive the same
per share merger consideration of $8.53 per share in cash plus an
extraordinary dividend of $0.60 per share, representing a total of
$9.13 per share. The Merger Agreement further provided that if the
acquisition was terminated under specified circumstances, the
Company would pay a "Company Termination Fee," which was defined as
"a termination fee equal to $1,645,000 plus reimburse Bowlero for
its reasonable and documented third party expenses in an aggregate
amount not to exceed $3.5 million." As part of its consideration,
the Board received a written opinion from an independent financial
advisor, Kroll LLC, which concluded that the Merger Agreement was
fair to Bowl America's public shareholders from a financial point
of view ("Fairness Opinion").
Thereafter, the Board unanimously voted to recommend approval of
the Merger Agreement to the shareholders, and to cast their votes
in favor of the Merger. That same day, stockholders owning a
majority of the voting power of the Company's Class B common stock
("Majority Holders") executed voting and support agreements in
favor of the Merger. In the aggregate, the Majority Holders --
comprised of Fabian, Macklin, Hull, and members of the Katzman
family -- beneficially owned approximately 85.6% of the total
voting of the Company's common stock, a percentage that was
sufficient to approve the Merger. The Merger Agreement did not
condition the Merger on an affirmative vote from a majority of the
minority shareholders.
On July 13, 2021, the Company filed and disseminated a Merger Proxy
in advance of an Aug. 11, 2021 shareholder vote on the Merger. The
Merger Proxy stated that the Board unanimously recommended approval
of the Merger as in the best interests of the Company and its
stockholders. It cited among the factors that the Board considered
in reaching its determination: Kroll's Fairness Opinion; the
Company's limited ability to finance requisite substantial capital
investments; and the likelihood that the Company would be required
to reduce or eliminate its historic dividend if continued as a
standalone entity. The Merger Proxy further reported that the
Majority Holders' pledged support was sufficient to approve the
Merger.
The Plaintiffs were beneficial owners of the Company's stock,
collectively holding approximately 7.5% of the Company's
outstanding shares of Class A common stock on the record date. They
filed the action in August 2021, seeking class certification and
alleging violations of: Section 14(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act against Bowl America and the Director Defendants
(Count I); Section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act against
Director Defendants (Count II); breach of common law fiduciary
duties against the Director Defendants and Controlling Stockholders
(Count III); breach of fiduciary duties in violation of the
Maryland Corporate Code against the Director Defendants (Count IV);
aiding and abetting the Director Defendants' breach of fiduciary
duties against Bowlero (Count V); and aiding and abetting the
Director Defendants' breach of fiduciary duties against D&P (Count
VI).
III. Discussion
A. The Securities and Exchange Act (Counts I-II)
The Complaint alleges that the Merger Proxy was plagued by a bevy
of material omissions or misrepresentations that rendered the
statements therein false and misleading in violation of Section
14(a). Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Merger Proxy
"omitted and/or misrepresented" the following material information:
(1) the Board's consideration of strategic alternatives to a sale;
(2) the basis for the Board's selection of interested parties; (3)
the contents and prices of all offers submitted to the Board; (4)
all information related to the actual value of the Company's real
estate holdings; (5) the basis for the Board's selection and
retention of D&P; (6) the details surrounding Kroll's past and/or
present engagements by Bowl America; (7) the details surrounding
the past and/or present engagements by Bowlero, and any fees paid
for such work; (8) the Director Defendants' actual or potential
conflicts of interest; and (9) estimates of the Company's future
revenues, earnings, and cash flows.
In their Motion, the Defendants insist that none of these alleged
omissions and/or misrepresentations may serve as the basis of a
Section 14(a) claim.
Judge Gallagher agrees. In sum, she opines that the Plaintiffs fail
to adequately allege that the Merger Proxy contained material
misrepresentations or omissions, or that any such omissions
rendered statements within the Merger Proxy false or misleading in
violation of Section 14(a). Because the Plaintiffs have failed to
allege a primary predicate violation of the Act, their claim for
liability under Section 20(a) also fails. Counts I-II will
therefore be dismissed.
B. Breach of Fiduciary Duties (Counts III-IV)
In their Motion, the Defendants argue that the Board's actions are
protected by the business judgment rule, and the Complaint fails to
allege any breach of fiduciary duty. In opposition, the Plaintiffs
insist that: (1) Controlling Stockholders' conflicts require that
the Merger be reviewed for entire fairness rather than applying the
business judgment rule; and (2) that even if the business judgment
rule applies, the Complaint contains allegations sufficient to
rebut its presumptions.
In sum, Judge Gallagher opines that the Complaint plausibly states
a claim that the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties of care and good faith in approving the Company Termination
Fee; Counts III-IV will accordingly survive only to the extent that
they are premised on this decision. She finds that the allegations
fall far below the threshold of showing that the interests of the
Controlling Stockholders diverged from fellow stockholders who
stood to receive the same consideration from their respective
shares. She also finds that the Plaintiffs have alleged facts
sufficient to allege a breach of due care and good faith only
insofar as their claims concern the Director Defendants' approval
of the Company Termination Fee. By contrast, their claims in Counts
III-IV are not cognizable to the extent that they are premised on
other conduct or decision.
C. Aiding and Abetting (Counts V-VI)
The Defendants assert that both counts must be dismissed for
failure to allege that either Bowlero or D&P encouraged, incited,
aided, or abetted action by the Board with actual knowledge that
such an action would be a breach.
The Defendants are correct, Judge Gallagher holds. As described,
the Plaintiffs only state a claim for alleged breach of fiduciary
duties insofar as it concerns the Director Defendants' approval of
a potentially onerous, preclusive, or coercive Company Termination
Fee. The Complaint, however, includes no facts through which the
Court could infer Bowlero's or D&P's level of involvement in the
creation or approval of the breakup fee -- much less that either
party actively encouraged the Director Defendants with the
requisite level of knowledge or scienter. Judge Gallagher doubts
whether such conclusory allegations would suffice even if the
Complaint had stated a predicate underlying breach on either of
these bases. However, because the Complaint alleges no
participation or scienter on the part of Bowlero or D&P with
regards to the deal protections in the Merger Agreement, the claims
in Counts V-VI must be dismissed.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons she set forth, Judge Gallagher grants in part and
denies in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Motion is
granted without prejudice as to Counts I, II, V, and VI; and
granted in part and denies in part as to Counts III-IV. A separate
Order follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 27, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mufsd32a from Leagle.com.
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Settlement Class in Ide Gets Initial Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN IDE et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BRITISH
AIRWAYS, PLC (UK), Case No. 1:20-cv-03542-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary approval:
-- Preliminary Certification of the Settlement Class
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the
Settlement Class, as defined as follows, is preliminarily
certified for the purpose of settlement only:
"All persons or entities in the United States who purchased
a ticket for a BA flight:
a. where BA later canceled that flight between March 1,
2020 and December 31, 2021; and
b. the customer did not cancel the flight or fail to show
for the first leg of the flight prior to the
cancellation of a later leg; and
c. the customer did not receive a refund or rebooking from
BA; and
d. the customer received a voucher from BA and (1) with
respect to the March 1 - November 19 Settlement Class
Members did not already use the entire full value of the
voucher; and (2) with respect to the November 20 --
December 31 Settlement Class Members did not already use
their voucher in whole or in part.
"March 1 -- November 19 Settlement Class Members" means
all Settlement Class Members who purchased a ticket for
a BA flight where BA later canceled that flight between
March 1, 2020 and November 19, 2020.
"November 20 -- December 31 Settlement Class Members"
means all Settlement Class Members who purchased a
ticket for a BA flight where BA later cancelled that
flight between November 20, 2020 and December 31, 2021.
-- Preliminary Approval of the Settlement
The Court has scrutinized the Settlement Agreement
carefully. It preliminarily finds that the Settlement is the
product of extensive, non-collusive, arm’s-length
negotiations between experienced counsel who were thoroughly
informed of the strengths and weaknesses of the case through
discovery and motion practice, and whose negotiations were
supervised by the Honorable Diane M. Welsh (Ret.).
-- Exclusion from the Settlement Class
Any requests for exclusion must be received no later than 21
calendar days before the Final Approval Hearing, which is
the Opt-Out and Objection Date.
-- Termination of the Settlement
If the Settlement fails to become effective in accordance
with its terms, or if the judgment is not entered or is
reversed, vacated, or materially modified on appeal (and, in
the event of material modification, if either Party elects
to terminate the Settlement), this Order shall be null and
void, the Settlement Agreement shall be deemed terminated
(except for any paragraphs that, pursuant to the terms of
the Settlement Agreement, survive termination of the
Settlement Agreement), and the Parties shall return to their
positions without prejudice in any way, as provided for in
the Settlement Agreement.
British Airways is the flag carrier airline of the United Kingdom.
It is headquartered in London, England, near its main hub at
Heathrow Airport.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GVq0Xe at no extra charge.[CC]
CAPITAL ONE: Mensah FDUTPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BERNARD MENSAH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Case No.
2022-008014-CA-01, was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
June 1, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-21681-JAL to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of
contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
by failing to reimburse the Plaintiff and similarly situated
Capital One account holders who have been victims of fraud and
incurred losses for using Zelle, a money transfer service.
Capital One, NA is a national banking association with its main
office located in McLean, Virginia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Emily Y. Rottmann, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
50 N. Laura Street, Suite 3300
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Telephone: (904) 798-3200
Facsimile: (904) 798-3207
E-mail: erottmann@mcguirewoods.com
clambert@mcguirewoods.com
flservice@mcguirewoods.com
- and –
Jarrod D. Shaw, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
Tower Two-Sixty
260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 667-6000
E-mail: jshaw@mcguirewoods.com
CARTER'S INC: Gutierrez Files Suit Over Untimely Payment of Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ROSA GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARTER'S, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-03234 (E.D.N.Y., June 1, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's alleged failure to timely pay its manual workers in
violation of the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately 2018
to 2020 at a Carter's store located in Bayside, New York.
The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint asserting claim
that the Defendant paid her and other similarly situated manual
workers every other week rather than on a weekly basis. As a result
of the Defendant's unlawful pay policy, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated manual workers were injured because they lost
the time value of that money owed by the Defendant to them. Thus,
on behalf of herself and other similarly situated manual workers,
the Plaintiff seeks liquidated damages, prejudgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and litigation costs, says
the suit.
Carter's, Inc. owns and operates a chain of Carter's and OshKosh
B'osh retail stores. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Tel: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Class Cert Bid Hearing Continued to June 13
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON WILLIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO., Case No. 2:19-cv-08542-JGB-RAO (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order rescheduling
hearing on plaintiff's motion for class certification and
defendant's motions to exclude plaintiff's expert witnesses and
evidence.
-- The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification
and Colgate's motions to exclude Plaintiff's expert
witnesses and evidence shall be continued from June 6, 2022
to June 13, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.
Colgate-Palmolive Company is an American multinational consumer
products company headquartered on Park Avenue in Midtown Manhattan,
New York City. It specializes in the production, distribution and
provision of household, health care, personal care and veterinary
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GPCMXt at no extra charge.[CC]
CORECIVIC INC: Ct. Extends Dispositive Bid Deadline in Barrientos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARRIENTOS et al v.
CORECIVIC INC., Case No. (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Clay D. Land
entered an order extending the dispositive motion deadline so that
dispositive motions shall be due 45 days after the Court rules upon
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The deadline for filing a motion for class certification shall
remain unchanged, says Judge Land.
The nature of suit states Other Labor Litigation.
CoreCivic, formerly the Corrections Corporation of America, is a
company that owns and manages private prisons and detention centers
and operates others on a concession basis.[CC]
COSAN CONSTRUCTION: Sanchez Must Amend Complaint by June 10
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURO SANCHEZ and JUAN
EUSEBIO SANTIAGO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. COSAN CONSTRUCTION CORP., AMCG INC., TERRENCE JAMES
FERGUSON, and AARON KING, Case No. 1:21-cv-06744-PGG-SLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave entered an order pursuant
to the telephone status conference held on June 1, 2022, as
follows:
1. The Plaintiffs shall file a motion June 10, 2022
for leave to amend the complaint,
annexing their proposed amended
complaint:
2. In the event Defendants do not
consent;
the Defendants shall file their June 30, 2022
opposition to the Motion by:
the and Plaintiffs shall file July 8, 2022
a reply by:
3. The Plaintiffs' request for an order compelling Defendants
to hand-deliver the opt-in notice to "all current
employees, regardless of whether they signed arbitration
agreements, in English and Spanish with their next
paychecks," is denied.
4. The Defendants shall provide June 17, 2022,
Plaintiffs with contact
information for (I) the
approximately 80 employees
mistakenly omitted from the
list previously provided
to Plaintiffs, and (ii) all
current employees for whom the
Notice was returned to Plaintiffs'
counsel as undeliverable (the
employees in (i) and (ii), the
"New Recipients").
5. The Plaintiffs’ counsel shall June 30, 2022
send the Notice to the
New Recipients:
6. The opt-in period for the August 29, 2022
New Recipients is extended to:
7. The briefing schedule for
Plaintiffs' anticipated motion
for class certification under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 is extended
as follows:
The Plaintiffs shall file the September 30, 2022
Class Motion:
The Defendants shall file their October 31, 2022
opposition to the Class
Motion:
The Plaintiff shall file their November 14, 2022
reply, if any:
All discovery shall be October 21, 2022
completed by:
A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NmewP9 at no extra charge.[CC]
DOW AGROSCIENCES: Rice Farmers Seek to Certify Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOOTHE FARMS, INC.; BIG
RISK FARMS, INC.; JEFFREY D. BOOTHE; TERRY BOOTHE; ADAM BOOTHE;
RINEHART FAMILY FARMS II; MM FAMILY FARMS; and WILLIAM J. DORE,
individually and on of all those similarly situated, v. DOW
AGROSCIENCES LLC; CORTEVA, INC.; and E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
CO., Case No. (), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for granting class
certification, appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and
appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiffs are rice farmers and rice-farming entities in
Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri who bought Loyant, a rice
herbicide designed, manufactured, and sold by Defendants.
The Defendants promised that Loyant would control barnyardgrass, a
threatening weed common to rice fields in the mid-south United
States, without causing injury to rice crops. Contrary to
Defendants' promises, Loyant does not control barnyardgrass and
does cause crop injury.
The Plaintiffs brought these consolidated actions seeking damages
suffered due to the Defendants' breach of express warranty and
products liability.
The Plaintiffs seek to proceed on behalf of the following classes
of similarly situated rice farmers:
a. The Arkansas Class:
"All persons and entities in Arkansas who purchased and
used Loyant on rice crops for commercial use from 2018
through the present."
b. The Louisiana Class:
"All persons and entities in Louisiana who purchased and
used Loyant on rice crops for commercial use from 2018
through the present."
c. The Missouri Class:
"All persons and entities in Missouri who purchased and
used Loyant on rice crops for commercial use from 2018
through the present."
The Plaintiffs seek certification of a liability-only class
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), which allows class treatment when "the
questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action
is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy."
In the alternative, Plaintiffs seek certification of an issue class
pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4), which allows an action to "be brought or
maintained as a class action with respect to particular issues."
The Plaintiffs also seek certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) damages
class to compensate every class member for the amount they paid to
purchase the defective Loyant herbicide. Unlike adjudication of
Plaintiffs' and class members' consequential and incidental
damages, certification of the purchase-price damages is proper
because these will be calculated mechanically with little variation
across class members.
The Plaintiffs request that the Court make the following
appointments as Class Representative:
a. As Representatives for the Arkansas Class:
The Plaintiffs Boothe Farms, Inc., Big Risk Farms, Inc.,
Jeffrey D. Boothe, Terry Boothe, Adam Boothe (the Boothe
Operation); and Plaintiffs Stanley Jones, Black Spice
Farms, Inc., Britt Jones, Inc., Hogback Farm, Inc., J-Co
Farms, North 40 Farms, Inc., S&W Farms, SIB Farms, T&W
Farms, and Slough Farms, Inc. (the Jones Operation).
b. As Representative for the Louisiana Class:
The Plaintiff William J. Dore.
c. As Representatives for the Missouri Class:
The Plaintiffs Rinehart Family Farms II and MM Family Farms
(the Rinehart Operation).
The Plaintiffs also request that the Court appoint the following
counsel as Class Counsel:
a. Jason L. Lichtman and Daniel E. Seltz of Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP;
b. James J. Pizzirusso of Hausfeld LLP;
c. Clayton J. Smaistrla of Saucier & Smaistrla PLLC; and
d. Arthur M. Murray of the Murray Law Firm.
Dow AgroSciences LLC was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Dow
Chemical Company specializing in not only agricultural chemicals
such as pesticides, but also seeds and biotechnology solutions. The
company was based in Indianapolis, Indiana.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 27,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NVU1se
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
Daniel E. Seltz, Esq.
Gabriel A. Panek, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com
- and -
Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP
222 2nd Ave South, Suite 1640
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 313-9000
- and -
Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLMAN, PLLC
519 W. 7 th Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: 202.540.7200
- and -
Clayton J. Smaistrla, Esq.
SAUCIER & SMAISTRLA PLLC
200 Concord Plaza Drive, Suite 750
San Antonio, TX 78216
Telephone: (210) 901-8112
- and -
Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq.
MURRAY LAW FIRM
650 Poydras Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 525-8100
- and -
Charles A. Banks, Esq.
BANKS LAW FIRM, PLLC
Post Office Box 251310
Little Rock, AR 72225-1310
Telephone: (501) 280-0100
E-mail: cbanks@bankslawfirm.us
- and -
Daniel Todd Williams, Esq.
SNELLGROVE, LANGLEY, CULPEPPER,
WILLIAMS & MULLALLY
Post Office Box 1346
Jonesboro, AR 72403-1346
Telephone: (870) 932-8357
E-mail: twilliams@snellgrovefirm.com
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Torres Must File Class Cert. Bid by Oct. 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. ANTHONY TORRES D.O.,
Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated
consumers, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02056-CCC (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christopher C. Conner
entered an order that the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification shall be filed on or before October 6, 2022.
Equifax is an American multinational consumer credit reporting
agency headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NhdpQG at no extra charge.[CC]
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Torres Seeks Extension to File Class Cert.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. ANTHONY TORRES D.O.,
Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated
consumers, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02056-CCC (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order extending the deadline for him Plaintiff file a Motion for
Class Certification from June 17, 2022 to October 6, 2022.
The Plaintiff served his Complaint, bringing claims against Equifax
on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of consumers, on December
7, 2021.
Pursuant to the Court's initial scheduling order, the Parties
submitted a Joint Case Management Plan on February 11, 2022.
Following the February 17, 2022 initial conference with the Court,
the Parties submitted a Joint Proposed Scheduling Order, which the
Court adopted.
The operative Scheduling Order calls for Plaintiff to file his
Motion for Class Certification by June 17, 2022.
On February 15, 2022, the Plaintiff served Interrogatories and
Document Requests on Defendant seeking information relevant to
class certification issues.
Following a two-week extension agreed upon by the Parties, the
Defendant provided responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and
Document Requests, indicating that its investigation was ongoing
but agreeing to provide responsive documents and information.
Following service of its responses, Defendant has made document
productions, and the parties have met and conferred regarding
various discovery issues.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 27, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38NdxIC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 215.735.8600
Facsimile: 215.940.8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Zachary McEntyre, Esq.
John Toro, Esq.
Jeffrey Miles, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree, St NE No. 1600
Atlanta, GA 30309
E-mail: zmcentyre@kslaw.com
jtoro@kslaw.com
jmiles@kslaw.com
- and -
Adam M. Shienvold, Esq.
ECKERT SEAMANS
213 Market St No. 800
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Telephone: (717) 237-6029
E-mail: ashienvold@eckertseamans.com
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Class Cert Filing Deadline Continued to Oct. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARJORIE SAINT HUBERT,
VALERIE MARTINEZ, and THERESE SVENGERT, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC., a
Foreign Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-00086-PSG-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Philip S.
Gutierrez entered an order on stipulation regarding continuance of
trial and plaintiffs' class certification motion deadline as
follows:
1. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their Motion for Class
Certification is continued to October 1, 2022.
2. The Defendant's Opposition will be due November 4, 2022.
3. Plaintiffs' Reply is due December 2, 2022.
4. The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
will be Noticed for two weeks after the last date to file
Plaintiffs' reply.
5. Trial will be continued from November 1, 2022 to June 1,
2023.
6. Pretrial conference is set for May 19, 2023
Equinox Group is an American luxury fitness company which operates
several lifestyle brands: Equinox, Equinox Hotels, Precision Run,
Project by Equinox, Equinox Explore, Equinox Media, Furthermore,
PURE Yoga, Blink Fitness, and SoulCycle.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NhgBvJ at no extra charge.[CC]
EXPRESS COLLECTIONS: Kessler FDCPA Suit Removed to D. Wyoming
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TIM KESSLER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. EXPRESS COLLECTIONS, INC., Case No.
CV-2151, was removed from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial
District, Weston County, Wyoming, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Wyoming on June 1, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Wyoming assigned Case No.
2:22-cv-00124-NDF to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act.
Express Collections, Inc. is a debt collection agency in Rapid
City, South Dakota. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Timothy L. Woznick, Esq.
Mandy M. Good, Esq.
CROWLEY FLECK PLLP
P.O. Box 394
Cheyenne, WY 82003-0394
Telephone: (307) 426-4100
Facsimile: (307) 426-4099
E-mail: twoznick@crowleyfleck.com
mgood@crowleyfleck.com
GAS GATHERING: Lyman FLSA Suit Moved From D. Minn. to W.D. Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled WILLIAM LYMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GAS GATHERING SPECIALISTS, INC., Case
No. 0:21-cv-02386, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas on June 1, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Texas assigned Case
No. 7:22-cv-00127 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to compensate
the Plaintiff and similarly situated welding inspectors overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Gas Gathering Specialists, Inc. is a gas company located in
Stinnett, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
E-mail: Fisher@nka.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
GEICO: Schwarzmann Files Bid for Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY SCHWARZMANN On
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly situated, v. GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY D/B/A GEICO, Case No. 1:21-cv-02270-PAB
(N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
granting the following relief:
1. That GEICO provide Plaintiff, within 10 days from the date
of the Court's Order granting this Motion, the names, last
known addresses, home and cellular phone numbers, and work
and personal e-mail addresses of those individuals who
performed work or worked for GEICO within Ohio as
Automobile and/or Residential Adjusters I and/or II during
the period December 2018 through August 2021;
2. That the Court authorize the Notice and Consent Form
attached to Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of this
Motion, to be immediately issued by first class mail,
electronic mail, and text message to all putative class
members;
3. That the Court authorize the Consent to Join Lawsuit Form
attached to Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of this
Motion, to be enclosed with the Notice to Potential
Plaintiffs, along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope
bearing the case name;
4. That 30 days following the initial service of the Notice
and Consent Form, the Court authorize Plaintiff to serve a
reminder communication of the Notice and Consent Form
attached to Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of this
Motion to all class members by text message and by e-mail;
and
5. That each putative class members be allowed to opt-in to
this action at any time up to 60 days after the initial
mailing, e-mailing, and text message of the Notice and
Consent Forms.
A copy of the Court's order Plaintiff's motion dated May 27, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PY6MVb at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Perlmuter, Esq.
TITTLE & PERLMUTER
4106 Bridge Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 308-1522
E-mail: Scott@Tittlelawfirm.com
- and -
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
James Miller, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
E-mail: GGreenberg@ZagFirm.com
JMiller@ZagFirm.com
GEORGIA-CAROLINA: Yarbrough et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES YARBROUGH and VICTOR LOPEZ-REED, each individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
GOERGIA-CAROLINA STUCCO, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00070-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., June 1, 2022) bring this
collective action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiffs Yarbrough and Reed were employed by the Defendant as
hourly-paid employees from August 2020 until January 2022 and from
January 2017 until April 2022, respectively.
The Plaintiffs claim that they were classified by the Defendant as
exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA. Despite
regularly working over 40 hours in a week, the Defendant deprived
them of their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the
federally mandated overtime rate for all hours they worked over 40
in a work week, the Plaintiffs added.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime premiums, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as the Court
may deem just and proper.
Georgia-Carolina Stucco, Inc. engages in stucco work activities.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
- and –
Matthew W. Herrington, Esq.
DELONG, CALDWELL, BRIDGERS,
FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN
101 Marietta Street, Suite 2650
Atlanta, GA 30303
Tel: (404) 979-3150
E-mail: matthew.herrington@dcbflegal.com
GIORGIO ARMANI: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Hasty Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK HASTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GIORGIO ARMANI CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 2:22-cv-00339-JLB-MRM (M.D., Fla., May 31, 2022) seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
GIORGIO ARMANI CORP OF NEW YORK operates an online apparels store.
The Company offers man, woman, and kids clothing, accessories,
bags, and shoes. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 907-1136
GIRLS GALORE: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
---------------------------------------------------------------
KITREA JACKSON, TIFFANY JOHNSON, KRISTIN JOURNIGAN, KIERRA BROWN,
BIANCA BRUNETTI, and STEPHANIE MEDINA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GIRLS GALORE, INC.
d/b/a/ ALLURE GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, CARMEN POPOVICH, NICHOLAS A.
STERGION, VICTOR POPOVICH, and JOHN DOES 1-3, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-02186-WMR (N.D. Ga., June 1, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated exotic dancers at an hourly rate above or equal
to the minimum wage pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
for illegal kickbacks by requiring them to pay house fees and
tip-outs as a condition of employment.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as exotic dancers at
Allure Gentlemen's Club in Georgia.
Girls Galore, Inc., doing business Allure Gentlemen's Club, is an
owner and operator of a strip club located in Fulton County,
Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mutepe Akemon, Esq.
THE RICHARDS LAW GROUP, LLC
P.O. Box 360295
Decatur, GA 30036
Telephone: (404) 289-6816
Facsimile: (404) 795-0727
E-mail: mutepe.akemon@richardslegal.com
GOOGLE LLC: Class Settlement in Antitrust Suit Initially OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Google Play Store Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 3:21-md-02981-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
James Donato approved Parties stipulation as follows:
1. All class certification deadlines and deadlines for
Daubert motions for class certification experts as between
Developer Plaintiffs and Google, in Case No. 3:20-cv-
05792-JD, shall be held in abeyance pending further order
of the Court.
2. Developer Plaintiffs shall file a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement as soon as is practicable, but
on or before June 16, 2022.
Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
focuses on artificial intelligence, search engine, online
advertising, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing,
e-commerce, and consumer electronics.
A copy of the Court's Order dated May 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3afTIdp at no extra charge.[CC]
Interim Class Counsel for the Developer Class and Attorneys for
Plaintiffs Pure Sweat Basketball and LittleHoots, LLC, are:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Robert F. Lopez, Esq.
Ben M. Harrington, Esq.
Benjamin J. Siegel, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
- and -
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
Eamon P. Kelly, Esq.
Alberto Rodriguez, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, PC
Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel for the Developer Class and Attorneys
for Plaintiffs Peekya App Services, Inc. and Scalisco LLC, are:
Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq.
Katie R. Beran, Esq.
Scott A. Martin, Esq.
Irving Scher, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
Counsel for the Defendants Google LLC et al., are:
Brian C. Rocca, Esq.
Sujal J. Shah, Esq.
Michelle Park Chiu, Esq.
Minna L. Naranjo, Esq.
Rishi P. Satia, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
- and -
Daniel M. Petrocelli, Esq.
Ian Simmons, Esq.
Benjamin G. Bradshaw, Esq.
Stephen J. McIntyre, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
- and -
Glenn D. Pomerantz, Esq.
Kyle W. Mach, Esq.
Kuruvilla Olasa, Esq.
Justin P. Raphael, Esq.
Emily C. Curran-Huberty, Esq.
Jonathan I. Kravis, Esq.
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
GREENSKY MANAGEMENT: Loses Bid for Judgment on Pleadings
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXISS WRIGHT, an
individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v.
GREENSKY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, GREENSKY, INC., GREENSKY
HOLDINGS, LLC, and GREENSKY, LLC, Case No. 0:20-cv-62441-BB (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Beth Bloom entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for judgment on the Pleadings as to Class
Allegations Subsequent to October 26, 2016 or, Alternatively, to
Partially Deny Certification as to Any Class Subsequent to October
26, 2016.
However, the Court is not persuaded by the merits of Defendants'
arguments. As the Court stated, the Defendants' arguments rely on
the key contention that all loan agreements after October 26, 2016
contained an arbitration provision. In support, the Defendants only
cite, in their Reply, a single self-serving response to Plaintiffs'
interrogatories in Defendants' Responses.
The Court does not consider the self-serving response to be
sufficient in establishing that the class should not be certified,
especially before the close of class certification discovery. The
Court notes that Rule 23 requires a "rigorous analysis" or a
"fact-dependent inquiry" based on a developed record.
Thus, while the Court has considered Defendants' request to deny
class certification at this stage, the Court determines that
Defendants' arguments are unpersuasive. The Court is willing to
address the arguments again, should the need arise at the class
certification phase, after Plaintiffs have had the benefit of class
certification discovery and filed a Motion for Class Certification
in keeping with the Court's Scheduling Order. To the extent that
Defendants' Motion was motivated by concerns regarding the burden
of additional discovery, the Court notes that the Scheduling Order
specifically contemplated such concerns and bifurcated the class
certification discovery and general discovery in order to minimize
the burden of discovery to the extent possible.
On July 17, 2020, Wright initiated this class action against
Defendants in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit
in and for Broward County, Florida.
On December 1, 2020, Defendants removed the above-styled case to
this Court, alleging jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness
Act (CAFA). On December 16, 2020, Wright filed a First Amended
Class Action Complaint, which added the Bucks and Maria C. Poza as
named Plaintiffs.
The Complaint asserts the following three counts against
Defendants: Count I -- Violations of Florida's Loan Broker Law
(FLBL); Count II -- Violations of Florida's Credit Service
Organizations Act (CSOA); and Count III -- Injunctive Relief.
According to the Complaint, the Defendants are financial technology
companies that allow various types of merchants to apply for
point-of-sale loans on behalf of their customers through
Defendants' mobile application that streamlines the entire lending
process.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zy57QD at no extra charge.[CC]
HARMONY GROUP: Fails to Sufficiently Pay OT Premiums, Cagle Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFEORY CAGLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARMONY GROUP CANTON, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02182-LMM (N.D. Ga., June 1, 2022) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant from October 2021 until
February 2022. The Plaintiff's primary duties at the Defendant's
hotel were to check guests in at the front desk and process
payments.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated hourly-paid employees regularly worked more than 40 hours
per work week. However, the Defendant deprived them of sufficient
overtime compensation at the federally mandated rate, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint for himself and all other
similarly situated manual workers to recover overtime premiums for
all hours worked over 40 each week, liquidated damages, attorney's
fees and costs.
Harmony Group Canton, LLC owns and operates a hotel in Canton.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick Wilson, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: patrick@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
HEALTHY PAWS: Court Modifies Case Schedule in Benanav Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN BENANAV, BRYAN
GAGE, MONICA KOWALSKI, LINDSAY PURVEY, STEPHANIE CAUGHLIN, and
KATHERINE THOMAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. HEALTHY PAWS PET INSURANCE LLC, Case No.
2:20-CV-00421-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lauren King entered
an order granting the Parties' stipulated motion to modify case
schedule.
Deadline Date
-- Close of Fact Discovery September 13, 2022
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to October 28, 2022
file Motion for Class
Certification and Class
Certification Expert
Reports:
-- Deadline for Defendant to February 3, 2023
file Opposition to Motion for
Class Certification and Class
Certification Expert Reports;
Deadline for Defendant to
Complete Deposition of
Plaintiffs' Class Certification
Experts:
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to March 3, 2023
file Reply in Support of Motion
for Class Certification;
Deadline for Plaintiffs to
Complete Deposition of
Defendant's Class
Certification Experts:
-- All Parties' Daubert Motions April 7, 2023
as to Class Certification Experts:
-- All Parties' Oppositions to May 19, 2023
Daubert Motions as to Class
Certification Experts:
-- All Parties' Replies to Daubert June 16, 2023
Motions as to Class Certification
Experts:
Healthy Paws offers a simple accident and illness pet insurance
policy.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x8jJmJ at no extra charge.[CC]
HEAVEN HILL: Quezada Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE QUEZADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEAVEN HILL DISTILLERY, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-04527 (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 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,
store.heavenhilldistillery.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 read cookies pop up links, (b)
the screen reader skips over certain text on the page, (c) the
screen reader abruptly stops functioning in the middle of a
sentence or speech, (d) the screen reader fails to read the item
description link, and (e) the screen reader fails to read the
"cart" link when a new item is added, 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.
Heaven Hill Distillery 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
HERBALIFE LTD: Lavigne, et al., Seek Initial Approval of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL LAVIGNE, et al.,
v. HERBALIFE LTD., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-07480-JAK-MRW (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs Patricia Rodgers, Jennifer Ribalta, and Izaar
Valdez ask the Court to enter an order:
(a) Granting preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement
Agreement entered into between the Parties;
(b) Determining that the Court, at the final approval stage,
will likely certify the Settlement Class as defined in
the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3);
(c) Appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives of the
proposed Settlement Class;
(d) Appointing the law firms of Mark Migdal & Hayden ("MM&H")
and Mortgage Recovery Law Group, LLP ("MRLP") as Class
Counsel for the proposed Settlement Class;
(e) Approving the Parties' proposed notice program, including
the proposed "Notice of Class Action Settlement" Long
Form ("Long Form"), and directing that notice be
disseminated consistent with the notice program set forth
by A.B. Data as the Claims Administrator;
(f) Appointing A.B. Data as Claims Administrator and
directing A.B. Data to carry out the duties and
responsibilities of the Claims Administrator as specified
in the Settlement Agreement;
(g) Staying all non-settlement related proceedings in the
above-captioned case pending final approval of the
Settlement Agreement; and
(h) Setting a Fairness Hearing and certain other dates in
connection with the final approval of the Settlement
Agreement.
Herbalife is a global multi-level marketing corporation that
develops and sells dietary supplements. The company was founded by
Mark R. Hughes in 1980, and it employs an estimated 9,900 people
worldwide.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 27, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mbYTxJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paul A. Levin, Esq.
MORTGAGE RECOVERY LAW GROUP, LLP
550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1100
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 630-7900
Facsimile: (818) 630-7920
E-mail: plevin@themrlg.com
- and -
Etan Mark, Esq.
Donald J. Hayden, Esq.
MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
7 80 SW 8th Street, Suite 1999
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 374-0440
E-mail: etan@markmigdal.com
don@markmigdal.com
HOME HEALTH CARE: Mallett Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Home Health Care
Management Inc., et al. The case is styled as Gloria Mallett, and
on Behalf of all others similarly situated v. Home Health Care
Management Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2022-00320317-CU-BT-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 19, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Business Tort - Civil Unlimited."
Home Health Care Management Inc. --
https://www.homeandhealthcaremanagement.com/ -- have offered
comprehensive health care services in the North State for over 40
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark D. Potter, Esq.
POTTER HANDY, LLP
8033 Linda Vista Rd., Ste, 200
San Diego, CA 92111-5119
Phone: 858-375-7385
Fax: 888-422-5191
Email: mark@potterhandy.com
HOMEADVISOR INC: Airquip, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Airquip, Inc. v.
HomeAdvisor, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01849-PAB-KLM (D.
Colo.), the Plaintiffs submit motion for class certification and
appointment of class counsel Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of two categories of proposed
classes comprised of Traditional SPs from October 1, 2012 through
present (the "Class Period"): (1) the Deceptive Practices Classes;
and (2) the Misappropriation Classes.
The "Deceptive Practices Classes" consist of (1) a nationwide
class, and (2) nine state classes -- i.e., one for each of the
following nine states: California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio, and seek
certification of these "Deceptive Practices Claims":
On behalf of the nationwide Deceptive Practices Class, claims for
(1) fraud/fraudulent concealment, (2) aiding and abetting
fraud/fraudulent concealment, and (3) unjust
enrichment/restitution.
On behalf of the nine state Deceptive Practices Classes, Plaintiffs
allege those same claims plus claims for (1) breach of implied
contract and (2) violations of various consumer protection statutes
for eight of the nine states.
The "Misappropriation Classes" consist of (1) a nationwide class,
and (2) three state classes—i.e., one for each of the following
three states: Colorado, Florida, and Idaho, and seek certification
of these "Misappropriation Claims" for injunctive relief only:
On behalf of the nationwide Misappropriation Class, Plaintiffs
allege claims for (1) violations of the Lanham Act sections 43(a)
and 1125(a)(1)(B) and (2) a claim for declaratory judgment.
On behalf of the three state Misappropriation Classes, Plaintiffs
allege claims for (1) violations of all three states' consumer
protection statutes and (2) unfair competition for only the
Colorado and Florida individual-state classes
The Plaintiffs Airquip, Inc., DaSilva, Gray, Costello, Filipiak,
Baumann, Ervine, Hass, Haukenes, the McHenrys, and LaPlaca seek to
be named Class Representatives of their respective classes.
For the Deceptive Practices Classes, each Class Representative,
like the members of the Classes: is a Traditional SP, was charged
for non-CSR Leads, 50 and was defrauded by HA's failure to have
processes and controls to verify Leads prior to sending the Leads
to the SPs. Further, each Class Representative testified that
he/she was exposed to the false and misleading statements when
deciding to join HA, such as, the Leads were "qualified" and
"project-ready" and was misled about the Leads being verified by
HA.
For the Misappropriation Classes, the Class Representatives
suffered and are at future risk of suffering misappropriation of
their names and likenesses at the hands of HA, as HA (a) maintains
their OPPs to generate web traffic and Leads through HA's website,
despite those Plaintiffs terminating their HA membership, and (b)
claims it has a license to utilize in perpetuity the SPs' business
names and likenesses. See n.46.
The case arises from the adoption and implementation of a sinister
and deliberate business model that has victimized hundreds of
thousands of small businesses over a lengthy time period, and
continues to this day. HomeAdvisor ("HA") markets, advertises,
offers for sale, and sells various products to home service
providers ("SP(s)"). Pertinent to this Motion are two products: (1)
the information HA purports to collect from "homeowners" (or,
"customers") about their home service requests ("SRs"), which HA
then sends and charges to SPs as "Leads"; and, (2) an annual
membership for SPs to join HA's "network", which is the gateway for
HA to automatically send and charge SPs' "on-file" payment methods
for the Leads ("Lead Fees").
HomeAdvisor is a digital marketplace formerly known as
ServiceMagic. Its aim is to connect homeowners with prescreened,
local service professionals to carry out home improvement,
maintenance and remodeling.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 26,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nh6Hub
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
Kimberly M. Donaldson-Smith, Esq.
Mark B. DeSanto, Esq.
Stephanie E. Saunders, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER &
DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
361 West Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: (610) 642-8500
Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
E-mail: nec@chimicles.com
kds@chimicles.com
mbd@chimicles.com
ses@chimicles.com
- and -
Scott M. Tucker, Esq.
2711 Centerville Rd., Suite 201
Wilmington, DE 19808
Telephone: (302) 656-2500
Facsimile: (302) 656-9053
E-mail: Scotttucker@chimicles.com
- and -
Gordon W. Netzorg, Esq.
Mark W. Williams, Esq.
SHERMAN & HOWARD, L.L.C.
633 17th Street, Suite 3000
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 299-8381
Facsimile: (303) 298-0940
E-mail: gnetzorg@shermanhoward.com
mwilliams@shermanhoward.com
HOMEADVISOR INC: Wins Bid to Restrict Access to Docket Nos. 557
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Airquip, Inc. v.
HomeAdvisor, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01849-PAB-KLM (D.
Colo.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix entered an order
that the HomeAdvisor, Inc., IAC/InterActiveCorp., Angi
Homeservices, Inc., and CraftJack, Inc.'s unopposed motion to
Restrict Access to Docket Numbers 557 is granted.
The motion to restrict seeks to restrict access to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to maintain the Class
Certification Motion and attachments under restriction at level
HomeAdvisor is a digital marketplace formerly known as
ServiceMagic. Its aim is to connect homeowners with prescreened,
local service professionals to carry out home improvement,
maintenance and remodeling.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GLOPVM at no extra charge.[CC]
IONQ INC: Faces Leacock Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL LEACOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IONQ, INC.; IONQ, INC.; and THOMAS KRAMER,
Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-01306-DLB (D. Md., May 31, 2022) is a
class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired IonQ securities between March 30, 2021 and May
2, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue claims
against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint, that throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that IonQ had not
yet developed a 32-qubit quantum computer; (2) that the Company's
11-qubit quantum computer suffered from significant error rates,
rendering it useless; (3) that IonQ's quantum computer is not
sufficiently reliable, so it is not accessible despite being
available through major cloud providers; (4) that a significant
portion of IonQ's revenue was derived from improper round-tripping
transactions with related parties; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the suit.
On May 3, 2022, Scorpion Capital released a research report
alleging, among other things, that IonQ is a "scam built on phony
statements about nearly all key aspects of the technology and
business." It further claimed that the Company' reported
"[f]ictitious 'revenue' via sham transactions and related-party
round-tripping."
On this news, the Company's stock fell $0.71, or 9%, to close at
$7.15 per share on May 3, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the suit added.
IONQ, INC. operates as a computing hardware and software company.
The Company develops a general-purpose trapped ion quantum computer
and software to generate, optimize, and execute quantum circuits.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William E. Jacobs, Esq.
Stephen A. Weisbrod, Esq.
WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC
1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 499-7900
Email: sweisbrod@wmclaw.com
wjacobs@wmclaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com
clinehan@glancylaw.com
prajesh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Howard G. Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem PA 19020
Telephone: (215) 638-4847
Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
Email: hsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
IRONBOUND EXPRESS: Approval of Class Notice Form Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUXAMA, et al v. IRONBOUND
EXPRESS, INC. et al, Case No. (), the Hon. Judge John Michael
Vazquez entered an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for approval of their class notice form;
2. adopting the Defendant's Class Notice subject to the
Court's modifications;
3. allowing Plaintiffs 30 days to submit the required
information as to the proposed TPA as well as a revised
class notice form -- conforming to the specifications set
forth in this Opinion and Order and reflecting the use of
the proposed TPA -- for final approval by the Court; and
4. disseminating the revised class notice by first-class mail
and, where possible, electronic mail.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aBrZ77 at no extra charge.[CC]
JACOBY & MEYERS: Harding Seeks Reconsideration of May 13 Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY HARDING and ESTATE
OF JEFFREY HARDING, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. JACOBY & MEYERS, LLP, FINKELSTEIN &
PARTNERS, LLP, TOTAL TRIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, ANDREW FINKELSTEIN, and
KENNETH OLIVER, Case No. 2:14-cv-05419-JMV-JBC (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for reconsideration of its May 13, 2022
Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff Estate of Jeffrey Harding's
Second Renewed Motion for Class Certification.
Jacoby & Meyers is an American law firm established as a
partnership by Leonard Jacoby and Stephen Meyers.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 27,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NlCtWD
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq.
SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, New York 10007
Telephone: (212) 421-6492
Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com
- and -
Joseph Santoli, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH SANTOLI
340 Devon Court
Ridgefield, NJ 07450
Telephone: (201) 926-9200
JONES LANG: Faces Amaya Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
YULY AMAYA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-04537 (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2022) brings this complaint as a
class action against the Defendant for its alleged illegal pay
policies and practices that violated the New York State Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Concierge, a
manual worker, from around December 9, 2019 through April 17,
2020.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant failed to timely pay her
and other similarly situated manual workers. Instead of paying them
on a weekly basis, the Defendant paid them on a bi-weekly basis.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated manual workers have all been injured by the Defendant's
unlawful common policies, practices, and patterns of conduct of
failing to timely compensate them. The Defendant allegedly
benefited from the same type of unfair and/or wrongful acts.
On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated manual
workers, the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages as permitted by law
pursuant to the NYLL, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief
as the Court shall deem just and proper, says the suit.
Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc. provides real estate services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
Tel: (718) 669-0714
E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com
JUMPP LOGISTICS: Cervenka Seeks to Certify Delivery Driver Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN CERVENKA v. JUMPP
LOGISTICS, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 4:21-cv-00813-SDJ (E.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a collective
under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and sending court-authorized notice
to similarly situated workers defined as:
"All individuals who worked for Defendants as delivery
drivers in Texas, were classified as independent contractors,
and compensated via a piece-rate compensation structure
within the three-year period preceding the filing of this
lawsuit."
The Plaintiff, Kevin Cervenka alleges that the Defendants violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated workers, overtime wages as required by
the FLSA for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek.
The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing delivery
and courier services with address verification, tracking and proof
of delivery to their customers in various industries.
The Defendants provide their customers with delivery services
across the state of Texas through delivery drivers Defendants
recruit and classify as independent contractors.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 31,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3No6vcp
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 479-9229
Facsimile: (817) 840-5102
E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
pamela@herrmannlaw.com
- and -
Jerry Murad, Jr.
LAW OFFICE OF JERRY MURAD
P.O. Box 470067
Fort Worth, Texas 76147
Telephone: (817) 335-5691
Facsimile: (817) 870-1162
E-mail: jerrymurad@mac.com
JUSTICEWORKS YOUTHCARE: Shoop's Bid for Conditional Cert. Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAITLAN SHOOP,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. JUSTICEWORKS YOUTHCARE, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-00732-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Marilyn J. Horan
entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification.
Although the Court is denying Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
class certification, the Plaintiffs' claims may still proceed on an
individual basis.
JusticeWorks is a family and child social services company
providing child welfare services and serving youth in the Juvenile
Court System.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NjSU5L at no extra charge.[CC]
LB ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Onyeneho Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LYNDA ONYENEHO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LB ENTERTAINMENT LLC, a Florida
limited liability company d/b/a PinUps of Palm Bay, and TIMOTHY
BLAKESLEE, individually, Defendants, Case No. 6:22-cv-00978 (M.D.
Fla., June 1, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff against the
Defendant as a result of its alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an exotic dancer
from on or about January 7, 2021 until approximately October 15,
2021.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants of failing to compensate her
at a rate equal to the federal minimum wage requirement for work
performed while employed by the Defendants.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees and
costs, and other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
LB Entertainment LLC operates a Gentleman's Club. Timothy Blakeslee
is the owner of the Club. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian J. Militzok, Esq.
MILITZOK LAW, P.A.
8958 W. State Road 84, #1036
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324
Tel: (954) 780-8228
Fax: (954) 791-4456
E-mail: bjm@militzoklaw.com
LEXINGTON LAW: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to June 23
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER MOORE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
JOHN C. HEATH, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC d/b/a LEXINGTON LAW FIRM, Case
No. 2:21-cv-00027-TC-CMR (D. Utah), the Hon. Magistrate Judge
Cecilia M. Romero entered an order granting motion for extension of
discovery and class certification deadlines as follows:
-- The Plaintiff's Motion for June 23, 2022
Class Certification:
-- Close of fact discovery and June 29, 2022
deadline to depose Plaintiff:
The remaining deadlines are stayed pending resolution of
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The parties shall
submit a proposed scheduling order within 14 days of the court's
ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MwGTJn at no extra charge.[CC]
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Fifth Amended Calendar Order Entered in Middleton
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON MIDDLETON, et al.,
v. LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00668-DRC (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Douglas R. Cole
entered a fifth amended calendar order as follows:
-- Defendants' class certification June 27, 2022
expert report(s) and
designation(s):
-- Disclosure of lay witnesses: July 5, 2022
-- Defendants' Opposition to
Motion for Class Certification: July 19, 2022
-- Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' August 8, 2022
Opposition to Motion for Class
Certification:
Liberty Mutual operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Mbw6UJ at no extra charge.[CC]
LUCID GROUP: Faces Goel Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANANT GOEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LUCID GROUP, INC., PETER RAWLINSON; and
SHERRY HOUSE, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-03176 (N.D. Cal., May 31,
2022) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Lucid common stock or call options,
and sold Lucid put options, between November 15, 2021 and February
28, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims
against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, about the
Company's business and operations. Specifically, Defendants
overstated Lucid's production capabilities while concealing that
"extraordinary supply chain and logistics challenges" were
hampering the Company's operations from the start of the Class
Period, says the suit.
The price of Lucid common stock fell $3.99 per share, or more than
13%, from a close of $28.98 per share on February 28, 2022, to
close at $24.99 per share on March 1, 2022.
As a result of the 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, the suit added.
LUCID GROUP INC. operates as an automotive company. The Company
manufactures luxury electric cars, as well as provides energy
storage and original equipment solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
Email: clinehan@glancylaw.com
MDL 2918: Case Schedule Amended in HHD Suspension Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re: Hard Disk Drive
Suspension Assemblies Antitrust Litigation (MDL 2918), Case No.
3:20-cv-01217-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney
entered an order amending the case schedule as follows:
1. The close of fact discovery October 21, 2022
will be on:
2. The Defendants' Motions for August 2, 2022
Summary Judgment based on the
Foreign Trade Antitrust
Improvements Act (FTAIA) and
other laws limiting the
extraterritorial reach of
U.S. antitrust laws will be
due on:
3. The Plaintiffs' Oppositions October 14, 2022;
to Defendants' Motions for
Summary Judgment based on
the FTAIA and other laws
limiting the extraterritorial
reach of U.S. antitrust laws
will be due on:
4. The Defendants' Replies in December 7, 2022;
Support of their Motions for
Summary Judgment based on
the FTAIA and other laws
limiting the extraterritorial
reach of U.S. antitrust laws
will be due on:
5. Class Plaintiffs' Motions for September 27, 2022;
Class Certification and expert
reports in support of class
certification will be due on:
6. Defendants' Oppositions to November 22, 2022
Motions for Class Certification
and expert reports in opposition
to class certification will
be due on:
7. Class Plaintiffs' Replies and January 31, 2023
expert rebuttal reports in support
of their Motions for Class
Certification will be due on:
8. A Case Management Conference March 31, 2023
shall take place on:
A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q2Bah6 at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2966: Discovery, Scheduling Order Entered in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re Xyrem (Sodium
Oxybate) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:20-md-02966-RS (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order regarding discovery and
class certification schedule as follows:
Scheduled Event Current Revised
Deadline Deadline
-- Substantial Completion of May 20, 2022 May 20, 2022
Document Productions:
-- Last Day to File (i) Motion July 29, 2022 Nov. 2, 2022
for Class Certification
and (ii) Class Certification
Opening Reports:
-- Substantial Completion of Aug. 31, 2022 Dec. 7, 2022
Depositions; Last Day to
Serve Written Discovery
Under Rules 33 & 36:
-- Last Day to File (I) Sept. 16, 2022 Dec. 21, 2022
Opposition to Class
Certification and (ii)
Class Certification
Rebuttal Reports:
-- Close of Fact Discovery: Sept. 30, 2022 Jan. 28, 2023
-- Last Day to File (I) Oct. 14, 2022 Feb. 1, 2023
Reply in Support of
Class Certification and
(ii) Class Certification
Reply Reports
-- Last Day to File Daubert Oct. 21, 2022 Feb. 8, 2023
Motions for Class
Certification Experts
-- Last Day to File Nov. 4, 2022 Feb. 22, 2023
Oppositions to Daubert
Motions for Class
Certification Experts:
-- Hearing on Class Nov. 14, 2022 March 15, 2023
Certification:
A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GN4wfa at no extra charge.[CC]
The Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, are:
Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
Scott Grzenczyk, Esq.
Tom Watts, Esq.
Jordan Isern, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com
scottg@girardsharp.com
tomw@girardsharp.com
jisern@girardsharp.com
- and -
Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
Michelle C. Clerkin, Esq.
Jacob Onile-Ere, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
777 Third Avenue, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 577-0050
E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com
mclerkin@motleyrice.com
jonileere@motleyrice.com
The Attorneys for Plaintiff United HealthCare Services, Inc., are:
Judith A. Zahid, Esq.
Eric W. Buetzow, Esq.
Heather T. Rankie, Esq.
James R. Martin, Esq.
Jennifer Duncan Hackett, Esq.
John A. Carriel, Esq.
ZELLE LLP
555 12th Street, Suite 1230
Oakland, CA 94607
Telelephone: (415) 693-0700
E-mail: jzahid@zelle.com
ebuetzow@zelle.com
hrankie@zelle.com
jmartin@zelle.com
jhackett@zelle.com
jcarriel@zelle.com
- and -
Hamish P.M. Hume, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
1401 New York Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 237-2727
E-mail: hhume@bsfllp.com
- and -
Beko O. Reblitz-Richardson, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
44 Montgomery Street, 41st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 293-6800
E-mail: brichardson@bsfllp.com
The Attorneys for Plaintiffs Humana Inc., Molina Healthcare, Inc.,
and Health Care Service Corporation, Inc., are:
Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
Jason H. Kim, Esq.
Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
E-mail: TSchneider@schneiderwallace.com
KJKim@schneiderwallace.com
MWeiler@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq.
Noelle Ruggiero, Esq.
Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
E-mail: PStPhillip@lowey.com
NRuggiero@lowey.com
URabinovitz@lowey.com
The Attorneys for Defendants Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Jazz
Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals Public
Limited Company, are:
Jeffrey Faucette, Esq.
SKAGGS FAUCETTE LLP
Four Embarcadero Center
Suite 1400 PMB #72
San Francisco CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 295-1197
Facsimile: (888) 980-6547
E-mail: jeff@skaggsfaucette.com
- and -
Heidi K. Hubbard, Esq.
Stanley E. Fisher, Esq.
Benjamin M. Greenblum, Esq.
Charles L. McCloud, Esq.
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
680 Maine Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20024
Telephone: (202) 434-5000
Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
E-mail: hhubbard@wc.com
sfisher@wc.com
bgreenblum@wc.com
lmccloud@wc.com
The Attorneys for Defendant Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. in
Consolidated Class Actions, Molina Action, and HCSC Action, are:
Benjamin G. Bradshaw, Esq.
Brett J. Williamson, Esq.
Stephen McIntyre, Esq.
Monsura A. Sirajee, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
1625 Eye Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (203) 383-5300
Facsimile: (203) 383-5414
E-mail: bbradshaw@omm.com
smcintyre@omm.com
bwilliamson@omm.com
msirajee@omm.com
The Attorneys for Defendant Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. in United
HealthCare Services, Inc. Action and Humana Action, are:
Elizabeth K. McCloskey, Esq.
Nicholas S. Goldberg, Esq.
KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone: (415) 391-5400
Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
E-mail: emccloskey@keker.com
ngoldberg@keker.com
The Attorneys for Defendants Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Lupin
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lupin Inc., and Lupin Ltd., are:
Devora W. Allon, P.C., Esq.
Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C., Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 446-4800
E-mail: devora.allon@kirkland.com
lefkowitz@kirkland.com
The Attorneys for Defendants Hikma Pharmaceuticals Eurohealth
(U.S.A.), Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceu Corp. n/k/a Hikma
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., and Roxane Laboratories, Inc. n/k/a Hikma
Labs Inc., are:
Jack E. Pace III, Esq.
Kathryn Swisher, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 819-8200
Facsimile: (212) 354-8113
E-mail: jpace@whitecase.com
- and -
Kathryn J. Mims, Esq.
kathryn.swisher@whitecase.com
WHITE & CASE LLP
701 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 626-3600
Facsimile: (202) 639-9355
E-mail: kmims@whitecase.com
- and -
Heather M. Burke, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
3000 El Camino Real
2 Palo Alto Square, Suite 900
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2109
Telephone: (650) 213-0300
Facsimile: (650) 213-8158
E-mail: hburke@whitecase.com
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Sinelli Sues Over Failure to Disclose Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcio Sinelli, Individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, MERCEDES-BENZ U.S.
INTERNATIONAL, INC., DAIMLER NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, and
MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP AG, Case No. 6:22-cv-00925-WWB-GJK (M.D. Fla.,
May 19, 2022), is brought on behalf all persons similarly situated
who have purchased or leased the following Mercedes-Benz vehicles:
Model Year 2006–2012 ML-SUVs, Model Year 2006–2012 GL-SUVs, and
Model Year 2006–2012 R-class SUVs (hereinafter referred to as the
"Class Vehicles") to redress the Defendants' misconduct by failing
to disclose the Brake Defect and to seek recovery of damages and
repair under state consumer-protection statutes and express and
implied warranties, as well as reimbursement of related expenses
and diminished value of the Class Vehicles.
The Defendants have had actual knowledge of the defect in the brake
booster (hereinafter "Brake Defect") since at least June 15, 2009,
when Mercedes issued a Technical Service Bulletin ("TSB") to its
network of dealers that warned of the dangerous impact corrosion
may have on the brake components of the Class Vehicles manufactured
to date. Defendants knew or should have known of the Brake Defect
much earlier due to pre-production testing, failure mode analysis,
and reports to authorized dealers, repair centers, and complaints
to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Despite having knowledge of the corroding brake boosters,
Mercedes-Benz concealed this information, delayed issuing a recall,
and still to this day has not sent notification letters to owners
of the defective vehicles. Because of Mercedes-Benz's unfair,
misleading, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices in
failing to disclose the Brake Defect to Plaintiff and putative
Class members, owners and lessees of the recalled Mercedes-Benz
vehicles have suffered losses in money and property.
Had Plaintiff and the putative Class members known of the safety
defect in the brakes, they would not have purchased or leased those
vehicles, or would have paid substantially less for them. In
addition, brake failure requires expensive repairs, car rentals,
car payments, towing charges, time off work, and other
miscellaneous costs. As a direct result of the Brake Defect and
Mercedes-Benz's concealment, owners of the recalled Mercedes-Benz
vehicles have a lower market value and are inherently worth less
than they otherwise would be, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the owner of a 2007 Mercedes-Benz ML Class as well
as a 2012 Mercedes-Benz ML Class both of which have the Brake
Defect.
Mercedes-Benz is one of the world's largest and most well-known
manufacturers of luxury automobiles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq.
Sarah J. Schultz, Esq.
SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
1212 SE Third Avenue
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
Phone: 954-467-8800
Email: scott@schlesingerlaw.com
jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com
jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com
sarah@schlesingerlaw.com
MLD MORTGAGE: Parties Seek to Stay Class Certification Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER DYE, et. al., v. MLD
MORTGAGE, INC., dba THE MONEY STORE, Case No. e 1:19-cv-03304-ELH
(D. Md.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order staying the
Court's Judgment of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification,
pending final approval of the Parties settlement Agreement.
On January 17, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification. On February 8, 2022, the Defendants filed their
Opposition.
On February 28, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Reply. The Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification is fully briefed and pending before
the Court.
On May 27, 2022, the Parties reached an Agreement settling both the
individual and class claims alleged in the Complaint. The Agreement
proposes and will seek approval of a Settlement Class thereby
rendering unnecessary a decision on the pending motion for class
certification.
MLD Mortgage provides financing services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PZXXu7 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
Veronica B. Nannis, Esq.
JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE
6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
Greenbelt, MD 20770
Telephone: (301) 220-2200
Facsimile: (301) 220-1214
E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
vnannis@jgllaw.com
- and -
Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
Melissa L. English, Esq.
SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC
600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
Towson, MD 21204
Telephone: (410) 821-0070
Facsimile: (410) 821-0071
E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com
menglish@sgs-law.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Harry Levy, Esq.
SHUMAKER WILLIAMS P.C.
Dulaney Center II
901 Dulaney Valley Road, Suite 610
Towson, MD 21204
Telephone: (410) 825-5426
Facsimile: (410) 825-5426
E-mail: hlevy@shumakerwilliams.com
NATIONAL CREDIT: Court Grants Swanson's Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSALYNE SWANSON, v.
NATIONAL CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Case No. C19-1504-RSL (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification:
"All persons in the United States who, from September 19,
2015 through the date notice is disseminated, (1)
Defendant caused to be called; (2) on the person's
cellphone; (3) using the same dialing equipment that was
used to call Plaintiff; (4) for the purpose of collecting
a debt; and (5) had their cellphone number obtained by NCS
in the same way that NCS obtained Plaintiff's cellphone
number."
The following exclusions apply: (1) any Judge or
Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their
families; (2) Defendant, Defendant's subsidiaries,
parents, successors, predecessors, contractors, and any
entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a
controlling interest and their current or former
employees, officers and directors; (3) persons who
properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion
from the Class; (4) persons whose claims in this matter
have been finally adjudicate on the merits or otherwise
released; (5) Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant's counsel;
and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and
assignees of any such excluded persons.
2. appointing Patrick H. Peluso and Steven L. Woodrow of
Woodrow & Peluso, LLC, and Michael Matesky of Matesky Law,
PLLC as class counsel; and
3. appointing her as class representative.
The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, actual
damages, treble damages for willful or knowing violations,
statutory damages, and reasonable attorney's fees.
The Defendant denies using ATDS and artificial or prerecorded
calls. The Defendant argues that because it had constructive access
to the recording of plaintiff's 2017 phone conversation with
Maximus and received the DMCS file with plaintiff's number, it had
plaintiff's prior express consent to receiving calls. The Defendant
also states that its policy is to obtain express consent during its
first live conversation with borrowers. Since prior express consent
is an affirmative defense to TCPA claims, defendant contends the
class definition is overbroad, as it includes class members who
gave their prior express consent as well as those who did not.
The Defendant is a Washington debt collection company. The
Department of Education (DOE) hired defendant to collect its
federal student loan debts. The Defendant received borrowers' cell
phone numbers from three different sources: (1) from DOE directly;
(2) from Maximus, DOE's contractor, which maintains a Debt
Management Collection System (DMCS) with information regarding
borrowers; and (3) from third party vendors hired by defendant to
perform skip tracing services.
National Credit is a collection agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Mknk6R at no extra charge.[CC]
NATIONAL SPINE: Allowed Leave to File Sur-Reply in Scoma Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Scoma Chiropractic, P.A.
v. National Spine and Pain Centers LLC, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-00430 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mac R. Mccoy entered an
endorsed order granting the Defendants' unopposed motion for Leave
to File a Three-Page Sur-Reply to Address New Documents Attached to
Plaintiff's Reply Regarding Class Certification.
The suit involves restrictions on use of telephone equipment.
National Spine provides health care services.[CC]
NATIONAL WILDLIFE: E.R. Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Wildlife
Federation. The case is styled as E.R., through his mother and
legal guardian Sherry Gaines v. National Wildlife Federation, Case
No. 2:22-cv-11173-JEL-CI (E.D. Mich., May 30, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute s
Civil Miscellaneous Case.
The National Wildlife Federation -- https://www.nwf.org/ -- is the
United States' largest private, nonprofit conservation education
and advocacy organization, with over six million members and
supporters, and 51 state and territorial affiliated
organizations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
MILLER LAW FIRM PC
950 W University Dr., Ste. 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Phone: (248) 267-1200
Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
NELNET INC: Seeks Temporary Stay of Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW JOHANSSON, JON
PEARCE, and LINDA STANLEY, on behalf of themselves and the Class
Members described herein, Plaintiffs, v. NELNET, INC., a Nebraska
Corporation, NELNET DIVERSIFIED SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Nebraska limited
liability company, and NELNET SERVICING, LLC, a Nebraska limited
liability company, Case No. 4:20-cv-03069-JMG-CRZ (D. Neb.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an expedited Order temporarily
staying or, alternatively, bifurcating briefing on Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.
On May 19, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification
along with a supporting brief. In their motion for class
certification, Plaintiffs abandon the theories of liability and
putative class definitions set forth in the Complaint, and instead
introduce a new, unpled theory of class-wide liability under a
materially different putative class definition.
The Defendants have filed a Joint Motion to Strike Plaintiffs'
Class Action Allegations and Motion for Class Certification on the
grounds that, as a fundamental and threshold issue, Plaintiffs are
precluded from advancing the theory of liability and putative class
definition presented in their Motion for Class Certification
because (a) they were not properly included in Plaintiffs'
Complaint and (b) the Court's May 4, 2022 memorandum and order
denying Plaintiffs leave to plead this theory and redefine the
putative class is the law of this case.
As it currently stands, Defendants' deadline to file a brief
opposing Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is June 9,
2022, and Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply brief in support
their Motion for Class Certification is June 23, 2022.
Nelnet is a United States-based conglomerate that deals in the
administration and repayment of student loans and education
financial services.
A copy of the Court's order Defendant's motion dated June 1, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NXZjDA at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel F. Kaplan, Esq.
Charles F. Kaplan, Esq.
PERRY, GUTHERY, HAASE
& GESSFORD, P.C., L.L.O.
233 South 13th Street, Suite 1400
Lincoln, NE 68508
Telephone: (402) 476-9200
Facsimile: (402) 476-0094
E-mail: dkaplan@perrylawfirm.com
ckaplan@perrylawfirm.com
NETFLIX INC: Faces Cleveland Bakers Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLEVELAND BAKERS AND TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NETFLIX,
INC.; REED HASTINGS; THEODORE SARANDOS; SPENCER NEUMANN; and
GREGORY PETERS, Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-03164 (N.D. Cal., May
31, 2022) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Netflix common stock between
January 19, 2021 and April 19, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursues claims against the Defendants for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) account
sharing by customers and increased competition from other streaming
services were becoming significant headwinds; (2) the Company was
experiencing difficulties retaining customers; (3) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's growth was decelerating; (4) as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results were being
adversely affected; and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and
lacked a reasonable basis, says the suit.
On April 19, 2022, after the market closed, Netflix reported that
instead of gaining 2.5 net subscriptions, it had lost 200,000
subscriptions during the first quarter of 2022. The Company
disclosed, belatedly, that account sharing and competition from
other services were hampering growth.
On this news, the price of Netflix stock price fell $122.42, or
over 35%, to close at $226.19 per share on April 20, 2022, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous declines in the price of the Company's securities, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages, added the suit.
NETFLIX INC. is an Internet subscription service for watching
television shows and movies. Subscribers can instantly watch
unlimited television shows and movies streamed over the Internet to
their televisions, computers, and mobile devices and in the United
States, subscribers can receive standard definition DVDs and
Blu-ray Discs delivered to their homes. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Elizabeth Graham, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
201 Mission Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 293-8210
Facsimile: (415) 789-4367
Email: egraham@gelaw.com
- and -
Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
485 Lexington Avenue, Floor 29
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 722-8500
Email: dberger@gelaw.com
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Time to File Class Cert Briefing Extended in Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Price, et al., v. NH
Department of Health and Human Services, Commissioner, et al., Case
No. 1:21-cv-00025 (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Paul J. Barbadoro
entered an endorsed order granting motion to extend time to file
class certification briefing.
The suit alleges violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
The New Hampshire Department of Health & Human Services is a state
agency of the U.S. state of New Hampshire, headquartered in
Concord. Providing services in the areas of mental health,
developmental disability, substance abuse, and public health.[CC]
NEW YORK, NY: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Dunn Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERELLE DUNN and SAMUEL
SEMPLE, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:21-cv-09012-DLC (SDNY), the
Hon. Judge Denise Cote entered an pretrial scheduling order:
-- Any amended complaint will be June 24, 2022
filed by:
-- Motion for Class Certification
Motion served by: Sept. 23, 2022
Opposition served by: Oct. 28, 2022
Reply served by: Nov. 28, 2022
A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GOfYr2 at no extra charge.[CC]
NINJARMM LLC: Van Vlack Seeks to Certify FLSA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE VAN VLACK,
Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, v.
NINJARMM LLC, a foreign for profit Corporation, dba NINJAONE, Case
No. 8:22-cv-00539-SDM-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying the case to proceed collectively
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) section
216b; and
2. requiring the Defendant NINJARMM LLC to produce the
required class list, and authorize Plaintiff and counsel
to send notice of this action to all current or formerly
employed Sales DevelopmentRepresentatives (SDR, and
includes the singular and the plural) employed with
Defendant and its predecessors within the preceding three
years to the present.
The Plaintiff brought this FLSA 216b collective action against
Defendant, alleging willful violations of the FLSA and a scheme to
avoid paying overtime wages to a group or "class" of all salaried,
misclassified as exempt employees by permitting them to suffer to
work overtime hours, with their knowledge, encouragement and
pressure, all hours over 40 in each and every work week in order to
complete their job duties and requirements in violation of the
FLSA. Plaintiff and the class of similarly situated at issue were
Inside Sales Representatives working under the title of Sales
Development Representative (SDR) and worked at or worked remotely
and reported to Defendant's offices in Clearwater, Florida or
Austin, Texas.
The Plaintiff has met the lenient showing necessary under the
Notice Stage of the 11th Circuit to proceed collectively pursuant
to Section 216(b) of the FLSA and Plaintiff seeks to deliver the
proposed Notice and Consent to Join form to the following Class or
Classes of Similarly Situated persons:
"All persons currently or formerly employed by NINJARMM LLC
as a Sales Development Representative (SDR), or any other job
title used to describe persons who performed the same work as
an SDR, and who are currently employed or were previously
employed working at or reporting remotely to offices in
Clearwater, Florida, or Austin Texas, within the past three
years preceding the filing of this lawsuit through to the
date of trial."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 27, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zmZYe5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
6916 W. Linebaugh Ave., #101
Tampa, FL 33625
Telephone: (813) 639-9366
Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
E-mail: Mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
NISUN INTERNATIONAL: Shareholder Suit in NY Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Nisun International Enterprise Development Group Co., Ltd.
disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 17, 2022, that On September 22, 2021, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed a class action lawsuit filed in June 9, 2020.
Said class action lawsuit against the company and its then CEO and
CFO on behalf of a class of purchasers of its common shares between
April 24, 2020 and June 3, 2020, inclusive, alleging violations of
federal securities law. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that
the company had misrepresented and omitted material information in
public statements by failing to disclose certain transactions as
related party transactions in violations of sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the SEC rules
thereunder.
The company responded by filing a motion to dismiss the case for
failure to state a claim. On September 22, 2021, the Court granted
the motion and dismisses the lawsuit in its entirety, and the case
was closed.
Nisun International Enterprise Development Group Co., Ltd. is a
British Virgin Islands holding company with operations primarily
conducted through China subsidiaries and contractual arrangements
with its consolidated affiliated entities based in China in
internet based, value-added telecommunication services, mobile
application services and certain other businesses.
PENNSYLVANIA: Court Grants Application for Damages in MFW v. PLCB
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MFW Wine Co., LLC, A6 Wine Company, and GECC2 LLC
d/b/a Bloomsday Cafe, Petitioners v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control
Board, Respondent, Case No. 251 M.D. 2020 (Penn. Cmmw.), Judge Anne
E. Covey of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania grants the
Petitioners' Application for Relief Seeking Damages, Costs,
Interest and Attorneys' Fees from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control
Board.
On May 1, 2020, the Court granted peremptory judgment in mandamus
and summary declaratory relief in Petitioners' favor and against
the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) because the PLCB
failed to carry out the General Assembly's directive to permit
properly licensed companies to sell and deliver special orders
(SOs) directly to their customers without added handling fees.
I. Background
Before June 8, 2016, SO customers, like Bloomsday Cafe, that wished
to purchase a class, variety, or brand of liquor or alcohol not
then available from a PLCB Fine Wine and Good Spirits store (PLCB
Store) could place SOs for the items with licensed importers or
vendors, like MFW or A6. However, the licensed importers or vendors
were required to deliver the SOs to PLCB Stores, where the
customers had to pick them up. The PLCB charged the customers
handling fees for each bottle purchased in this process.
On June 8, 2016, by enacting Section 3 of Act 39, the General
Assembly amended Section 305(a) of the Liquor Code to provide that
SOs may be delivered from a licensed importer or vendor directly to
a customer. Section 3 of Act 39 also states that the PLCB may not
assess a handling fee on SOs, and that "the PLCB shall, by Jan. 1,
2017, implement a procedure for processing SOs." Further, on July
13, 2016, the General Assembly passed an omnibus amendment to
implement the Commonwealth's 2016-2017 budget (Section 20 of Act 85
of 20166), which added Section 1799.2-E to The Fiscal Code, and
therein provided that "the PLCB may implement a procedure for
processing SOs by June 1, 2017." The PLCB took the position that
implementing an SO processing procedure was discretionary, and the
June 1, 2017 date was merely advisory. As a result, to date, the
PLCB has not implemented an SO processing procedure, thereby
preventing licensed importers and vendors from directly shipping
SOs to their customers, and the PLCB continues to assess handling
fees on all SOs.
On March 6, 2020, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf issued a
Proclamation of Disaster Emergency in response to the COVID-19
pandemic. On March 16, 2020, the PLCB announced the indefinite
closure of the PLCB Stores and licensee service centers effective
March 17, 2020, to reduce the spread of COVID-19. On March 18,
2020, the PLCB, with Governor Wolf's authorization, mandated that
all retail licensees, clubs, permittees, and producers cease sales
of food and alcohol until further notice.
On April 15, 2020, MFW and A6 filed a petition for review in the
Court's original jurisdiction seeking to enforce their statutory
right to direct ship SOs from licensed importers and/or vendors to
customers. On April 16, 2020, MFW filed an emergency motion for
peremptory judgment in mandamus, and special injunctive and
declaratory relief, and requested an expedited hearing.
On April 22, 2020, MFW and A6 filed an amended petition for review,
adding Bloomsday Cafe as a Petitioner. Also on April 22, 2020, the
PLCB re-opened its SO program to allow retail licensees with wine
expanded permits (i.e., those permitted to sell wine to-go) to pick
up SOs from designated PLCB Stores beginning April 24, 2020. On
April 28, 2020, the Court conducted a hearing on the Motion.
On May 1, 2020, the Court granted summary relief in the
Petitioners' favor with respect to Amended Petition Count III
(Declaratory Judgment), and declared that Section 305(a) of the
Liquor Code, as amended, (1) prohibits the PLCB from charging a
handling fee on SOs delivered directly to customers, and (2)
requires the PLCB to implement a procedure to process SO direct
shipments. With respect to Amended Petition Count I (Mandamus), the
Court granted summary relief in Petitioners' favor and issued a
writ of mandamus: (1) directing the PLCB to allow licensed vendors
and licensed importers to ship SOs directly to customers; and (2)
directing the PLCB to implement a procedure for processing SO
direct shipments. The Court denied the Motion in all other respects
(Count II (Injunctive Relief)).
On May 27, 2020, the PLCB appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court which, on March 25, 2021, issued a Per Curiam Order (without
an opinion) affirming the Court's May 1, 2020 Order.
On May 25, 2021, the Petitioners filed the Damages Application. The
PLCB filed an answer to the Damages Application on June 11, 2021.
By Sept. 15, 2021 Order, the Court directed that the Damages
Application will be listed for argument seriately with the PLCB's
Preliminary Objection filed in Log Cabin Property, L.P. v.
Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 292 M.D. 2020,
filed May 27, 2022) (Log Cabin). The Court limited argument on the
Damages Application to: (1) whether the PLCB is a "person" under
Section 8303 of the Judicial Code; and (2) whether the Petitioners
may recover mandamus damages from the PLCB.
II. Discussion
First, the PLCB argues that, as a Commonwealth agency, the PLCB is
not a person under Section 8303 of the Judicial Code because the
definition of person in Section 1991 of the Statutory Construction
Act of 1972 (SCA), 1 Pa.C.S. Section 1991, excludes Commonwealth
government entities. The Petitioners respond that the PLCB is a
person under Section 8303 of the Judicial Code because the current
definition of person in the SCA does not exclude the Commonwealth
and its agencies.
Judge Covey holds that, in the context presented, the PLCB is a
person subject to Section 8303 of the Judicial Code. Notably, at
the time Section 8303 of the Judicial Code was enacted, Section
1991 of the SCA defined person as "a corporation, partnership, and
association, as well as a natural person," thereby exposing the
Commonwealth and its agencies to liability under Section 8303 of
the Judicial Code, until the General Assembly excluded the
Commonwealth in 1992. There is no indication that the General
Assembly intended, by amending the SCA's definition of person in
1992, to immunize Commonwealth agencies from mandamus damages.
Lastly, based on the fact that the purpose of Section 8303 of the
Judicial Code is to authorize mandamus damages against government
actors that fail to perform their statutorily mandated duties,
Pennsylvania courts have allowed mandamus damages to be assessed
against Commonwealth agencies thereunder.
Second, the Petitioners argue that they are entitled to costs and
damages under Section 8303 of the Judicial Code, plus associated
interest and attorneys' fees. The PLCB responds that, although MFW
is entitled to its taxable costs, the Petitioners are not entitled
to damages or related interest because the PLCB has sovereign
immunity, and the Petitioners are not entitled to attorneys' fees
under the circumstances of this case. In the alternative, the PLCB
requests that, if the Court determines that the Petitioners are
entitled to damages, interest, and/or attorneys' fees, that the
Court allows discovery and/or conduct a hearing for the Petitioners
to prove them.
Judge Covey opines that there is no fund to bear the Petitioners'
costs, the applicable law is certain, and application of the rule
will not work a substantial injustice, the Petitioners are entitled
to recover allowable litigation costs from the PLCB. Accordingly,
the parties agree that the PLCB owes MFW $946.26 in taxable costs
pursuant to Section 1726(a)(2) of the Judicial Code.
Third, the Petitioners seek damages from the PLCB arising from
their successful mandamus action. The PLCB responds that sovereign
immunity protects it from having to pay Petitioners damages related
to their mandamus action.
Judge Covey holds that Section 8303 of the Judicial Code allows the
Petitioners to recover damages to the extent they can prove them.
Thus, if the Petitioners can prove that the PLCB's delay in
establishing the SO program caused them financial harm, they would
be entitled to interest on their costs and damages, the amount of
which would be fixed based on their damages.
Fourth, MFW and A6 request that the Court grants their request for
$310,821.50, which represents their combined attorneys' fees from
the moment they engaged counsel through the filing of the Damages
Application. The PLCB retorts that the Petitioners are not entitled
to attorneys' fees merely because the PLCB advanced an argument
that was ultimately unsuccessful; the Court is not authorized to
award attorneys' fees pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate
Procedure 2744; Section 2503 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S.
Section 2503, does not apply because the PLCB did not engage in
vexatious conduct, and its defense was not arbitrary, vexatious, or
in bad faith.
Having determined that the PLCB had a clear and unambiguous
statutory duty to implement a procedure to process direct shipment
SOs by June 1, 2017, and, given that the Court issued MFW I in May
2020, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed that decision in
March 2021, yet the PLCB has not yet fulfilled that duty, Judge
Covey concludes that the PLCB's initial inaction was, at the very
least, arbitrary, and its ongoing refusal to implement a procedure
to process direct shipment SOs and continuing to assess handling
fees is dilatory and obdurate. Accordingly, MFW and A6 are entitled
to attorneys' fees from the PLCB related to their mandamus action.
Therefore, the PLCB is liable for the Petitioners' costs. The PLCB
is also liable for the Petitioners' damages to the extent the
Petitioners can prove them, plus associated interest on their costs
and damages, and MFW and A6 are entitled to attorneys' fees.
III. Conclusion & Order
Based on the foregoing, Judge Covey grants the Petitioners' Damages
Application. However, the PLCB is permitted to undertake discovery
and/or request a hearing limited to the Petitioners' damages and
interest, and MFW's and A6's attorneys' fees.
The PLCB has 20 days from the date of the Order to file an
Application with the Court to request a hearing on the Petitioners'
damages. The PLCB will serve discovery request(s), if any, related
to the issue of the Petitioners' damages 20 days from the date of
the Order and all discovery will be completed within 60 days of the
date of the Order.
The PLCB's Application for Post-Submission Communication is
denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 27, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p8esuk9 from Leagle.com.
PENNSYLVANIA: Objection to Judgment in Log Cabin v. PLCB Overruled
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Log Cabin Property, LP, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania Liquor
Control Board, Respondent, Case No. 292 M.D. 2020 (Penn. Cmmw.),
Judge Anne E. Covey of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
overrules the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board's preliminary
objection to the petition for review in the nature of a class
action complaint Log Cabin filed.
Log Cabin, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, filed suit against the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board
(PLCB), in connection with the Court's May 1, 2020 Order in MFW
Wine Co., LLC v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 231 A.3d 50
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) ("MFW I") (Brobson, J., single judge op.), aff'd
per curiam, 247 A.3d 1008 (Pa. 2021).
I. Introduction
In MFW I, the Court granted peremptory judgment in mandamus and
summary declaratory relief in favor of MFW Wine Co., LLC (MFW), A6
Wine Co., and GECC2 LLC d/b/a Bloomsday Cafe (collectively, MFW I
Petitioners), related to the PLCB's failure to carry out the
General Assembly's directive to permit properly licensed companies
to sell and deliver special orders (SOs) directly to their
customers without added handling fees.
II. Background
Before June 8, 2016, SO customers, like Bloomsday Cafe, that wished
to purchase a class, variety, or brand of liquor or alcohol not
then available from a PLCB Fine Wine and Good Spirits store (PLCB
Store) could place SOs for the items with licensed importers or
vendors, like MFW or A6. However, the licensed importers or vendors
were required to deliver the SOs to PLCB Stores, where the
customers had to pick them up. The PLCB charged the customers a
handling fee for each bottle purchased in this process.
On June 8, 2016, by enacting Section 3 of Act 39, the General
Assembly amended Section 305(a) of the Liquor Code5 to provide that
SOs may be delivered from a licensed importer or vendor directly to
a customer. Section 3 of Act 39 also states that the PLCB may not
assess a handling fee on [SOs], and that "the PLCB will by Jan. 1,
2017, implement a procedure for processing SOs." Further, on July
13, 2016, the General Assembly passed an omnibus amendment to
implement the Commonwealth's 2016-2017 budget (Section 20 of Act 85
of 20166), which added Section 1799.2-E to The Fiscal Code,7 and
therein provided that "the PLCB may implement a procedure for
processing SOs by June 1, 2017." The PLCB took the position that
implementing an SO processing procedure was discretionary, and the
June 1, 2017 date was merely advisory. As a result, to date, the
PLCB has not implemented an SO processing procedure, thereby
preventing licensed importers and vendors from directly shipping
SOs to their customers, and the PLCB continues to assess handling
fees on all SOs.
On March 6, 2020, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf issued a
Proclamation of Disaster Emergency in response to the COVID-19
pandemic. See Wolf v. Scarnati, 233 A.3d 679 (Pa. 2020); see also
"Process to Reopen Pennsylvania." On March 16, 2020, the PLCB
announced the indefinite closure of the PLCB Stores and licensee
service centers effective March 17, 2020, to reduce the spread of
COVID-19. On March 18, 2020, the PLCB, with Governor Wolf's
authorization, mandated that all retail licensees, clubs,
permittees, and producers cease sales of food and alcohol until
further notice.
On April 15, 2020, in MFW I, MFW and A6 filed a petition for review
in this Court's original jurisdiction seeking to enforce their
statutory right to direct ship SOs from licensed importers and/or
vendors to customers. On April 16, 2020, in MFW I, MFW filed an
emergency motion for peremptory judgment in mandamus, and special
injunctive and declaratory relief (MFW I Motion), and requested an
expedited hearing.
On April 22, 2020, the PLCB re-opened its SO program to allow
retail licensees with wine expanded permits (i.e., those permitted
to sell wine to-go) to pick up SOs from designated PLCB Stores
beginning April 24, 2020. Also on April 22, 2020, MFW and A6 filed
an amended petition for review in MFW I, adding Bloomsday Cafe as a
petitioner. On April 28, 2020, the Court conducted a hearing on the
MFW I Motion.
On May 1, 2020, relative to the MFW I Motion, the Court granted
summary relief in the MFW I Petitioners' favor with respect to
amended petition Count III (Declaratory Judgment), and declared
that Section 305(a) of the Liquor Code, as amended, (1) prohibits
the PLCB from charging a handling fee on SOs delivered directly to
customers, and (2) requires the PLCB to implement a procedure to
process SO direct shipments. See MFW I. With respect to amended
petition Count I (Mandamus), the Court granted summary relief in
the MFW I Petitioners' favor and issued a writ of mandamus: (1)
directing the PLCB to allow licensed vendors and licensed importers
to ship SOs directly to customers, and (2) directing the PLCB to
implement a procedure for processing SO direct shipments. The Court
denied the MFW I Motion in all other respects (Count II (Injunctive
Relief)).
On May 6, 2020, Log Cabin filed the Complaint in the instant
action, therein alleging that it and those similarly situated have
been unlawfully compelled to pick up and pay a handling fee to the
PLCB on every bottle of SO liquor or wine it purchased since June
1, 2017 (allowing the PLCB to collect millions of dollars in
handling fees) and, pursuant to Section 8303 of the Judicial Code,
42 Pa.C.S. Section 8303, and MFW I, they are entitled to recover
damages in the form of all handling fees paid and pick-up expenses
incurred due to the PLCB's inaction since June 1, 2017, plus costs,
prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees.
On May 27, 2020, in MFW I, the PLCB appealed to the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court. On June 5, 2020, the PLCB filed an Application to
Stay Log Cabin's Complaint in the instant action pending the
Supreme Court's decision relative to MFW I. Log Cabin opposed the
Application for Stay. However, on June 30, 2020, the parties filed
a Joint Application to Stay, which the Court granted the same day.
On March 25, 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a Per
Curiam Order (without an opinion) affirming the Court's May 1, 2020
Order in MFW I. On April 15, 2021, the parties in the case filed a
joint stipulation to lift the stay. On April 28, 2021, the Court
lifted the stay and issued a scheduling order.
On May 25, 2021, the MFW I Petitioners filed an Application for
Relief Seeking Damages, Costs, Interest and Attorneys' Fees (MFW I
Damages Application), which the PLCB opposed.
On May 28, 2021, the PLCB filed the Preliminary Objection and its
supporting brief, arguing that Log Cabin failed to state a viable
cause of action because: (1) the PLCB is entitled to sovereign
immunity and cannot be held liable for damages under Section 8303
of the Judicial Code; (2) the PLCB is not a "person" within the
meaning of Section 8303 of the Judicial Code and, thus, is not
liable for mandamus damages thereunder; and (3) mandamus damages
are only available under Section 8303 of the Judicial Code to those
that bring and successfully obtain mandamus relief, which Log Cabin
has not.
On June 28, 2021, Log Cabin filed its response to the Preliminary
Objection and its opposing brief, therein arguing: (1) sovereign
immunity does not apply; (2) the PLCB is a "person" under Section
8303 of the Judicial Code; and (3) Log Cabin need not have been a
party to MFW I to recover mandamus damages. On Aug. 6, 2021, the
PLCB filed a reply brief.
By Sept. 15, 2021 Order, the Court directed that the PLCB's
Preliminary Objection in the matter will be listed for argument
seriately with the MFW I Damages Application. Therein, it limited
argument on the MFW I Damages Application to: (1) whether the
Petitioners may recover mandamus damages from the PLCB; and (2)
whether the PLCB is a "person" under Section 8303 of the Judicial
Code. With this Court's permission, on Oct. 8, 2021, Log Cabin
filed a sur-reply brief.
III. Discussion
The PLCB objects to Log Cabin's Complaint pursuant to Pennsylvania
Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 1028(4), on the basis that it fails
to state a legally sufficient cause of action for damages.
The PLCB first argues in support of its demurrer that Log Cabin's
claim is barred by sovereign immunity. Specifically, it asserts
that there is no specific waiver of sovereign immunity which
operates to allow Log Cabin's claim and, although actions to
restrain state officials from performing affirmative acts are not
within the rule of immunity, suits to obtain money damages are, and
Log Cabin's tag-along claim is the latter.
Log Cabin responds that the PLCB is not entitled to sovereign
immunity in the case because: (1) the PLCB acted outside the scope
of its duties; (2) sovereign immunity does not apply to Section
8303 of the Judicial Code because it is a long-standing form of
relief expressly authorizing the assessment of damages against a
Commonwealth agency; and (3) the General Assembly has made it
abundantly clear in other contexts that sovereign immunity does not
permit a state agency to retain unlawfully collected funds.
First, Judge Covey opines that in light of the Court's ruling in
MFW I that the PLCB violated a clear statutory mandate, Log Cabin's
claim is not barred by sovereign immunity. Log Cabin's claims do
not fall under any of the exceptions listed in Section 8522(b) of
the Sovereign Immunity Act. Section 8303 of the Judicial Code has
not before nor after Act 152 been subject to sovereign immunity. In
addition, implied repeals are disfavored, particularly when two
statutes can be reconciled.
Next, Judge Covey holds that, in the context presented, the PLCB is
a person subject to Section 8303 of the Judicial Code. Notably, at
the time Section 8303 of the Judicial Code was enacted, Section
1991 of the SCA defined person as "a corporation, partnership, and
association, as well as a natural person," thereby exposing the
Commonwealth and its agencies to liability under Section 8303 of
the Judicial Code, until the General Assembly excluded the
Commonwealth in 1992. There is no indication that the General
Assembly intended, by amending the SCA's definition of person in
1992, to immunize Commonwealth agencies from mandamus damages.
Moreover, based on the fact that the purpose of Section 8303 of the
Judicial Code is to authorize mandamus damages against government
actors that fail to perform their statutorily mandated duties,
Pennsylvania courts have allowed mandamus damages to be assessed
against Commonwealth agencies thereunder.
Lastly, because the PLCB is clearly liable to licensed vendors,
importers, and licensees for provable mandamus damages under
Section 8303 of the Judicial Code, and neither that provision nor
any caselaw expressly preclude Log Cabin's claim, Judge Covey finds
that it does not appear with certainty that Log Cabin cannot
recover damages from the PLCB. Accordingly, the PLCB's Preliminary
Objection must be overruled.
IV. Conclusion & Order
Accepting as true all well-pleaded material allegations in the
Complaint and the documents attached thereto, as well as all
inferences reasonably deduced therefrom," and resolving any doubt
in favor of overruling the preliminary objection, as the Court
must, because it does not "appear with certainty that Log Cabin has
failed to state a viable cause of action for damages against the
PLCB," the PLCB's Preliminary Objection is overruled.
The PLCB is directed to file an answer to the Complaint within 30
days of the date of the Order.
The PLCB's Application for Post-Submission Communication is
denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 27, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5n8zwh9y from Leagle.com.
PENSKE TRUCK: Brown Seeks to Conditionally Certify Collective
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE BROWN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., LP, and PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CORPORATION,
Case No. 4:22-cv-00020-LPR (E.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:
A. Conditionally certifying the case as a collective action
consisting of:
"All Hourly Employees employed by the Defendants within
the three years prior to the filing of Plaintiff's
Original Complaint and to approve notice to those current
and former employees.
B. Approving hisproposed Notice and Consent to Join and
proposed method of distribution including mailing and
emailing;
C. Approving the form and content of Exhibits 1–4;
D. Directing the Defendants to produce the requested contact
information of each putative collective member in an
electronically importable and malleable electronic format,
such as Excel, within seven days after this Court's Order
is entered;
E. Allowing for an opt-in period of 90 days, to begin on the
date on which the Defendants produce the collective
members' names and contact information, in which
collective members may submit Consents to Join this
lawsuit as opt-in plaintiffs; and
F. Awarding costs and a reasonable attorney's fee and grant
all other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled,
whether specifically prayed for or not.
The Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid employee for the Defendants
in Arkansas. He seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act ("AMWA").
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 27,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MeM28x
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sean Short, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
PERFECT PATTERNS: Scheduling Order Entered in Daly Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERRETTE DALY, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PERFECT PATTERNS,
INC., Case No. 22-CV-314 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William C.
Griesbach entered an scheduling order as follows:
1. Initial disclosures are to be July 12, 2022
exchanged between the parties
no later than:
2. Amendments to the pleadings may July 12, 2022
be filed without leave of court
on or before:
3. The Plaintiff's expert witness June 2, 2023
disclosure is due on or before:
4. All fact discovery in this case June 2, 2023
is to be completed no later than:
5. Expedited non-dispositive motions
must comply with Civil L.R. 7(h):
6. Plaintiff will file a motion for September 30, 2022
conditional certification under
the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) on or before:
7. Plaintiff's motion for final March 17, 2023
certification under the FLSA
and class certification under
Rule 23 is due:
8. The Defendant's motion to March 17, 2023
decertify the FLSA conditional
collective (if applicable) is
due:
Perfect Patterns is a machinery company based out of 2221 E Pensar
Dr, Appleton, Wisconsin.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3thae3q at no extra charge.[CC]
PINGORA LOAN: Garcia Suit Moved From E.D. Cal. to S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. PINGORA LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-00821, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on June 1, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-21680 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 and the California Unfair
Competition Law by failing to safeguard the personally identifiable
information of its customers, including the Plaintiff.
Pingora Loan Servicing, LLC is a provider of servicing residential
mortgage loans, headquartered in Denver, Colorado. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Teresa C. Chow, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Telephone: (310) 820-8800
Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
E-mail: tchow@bakerlaw.com
PRIMERICA LIFE: Pretrial & Trial Dates Continued in Palmer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAYSON D. PALMER, JUDITH
PALMER, AND JENNIFER WITHERSPOON, v. PRIMERICA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-00914-AB-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Andre Birotte entered an order approving joint stipulation and
granting request to continue pretrial and trial dates as follows:
-- Jury Trials: Aug. 8. 2023
-- Final Pretrial Conference: July 21, 2023
-- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-off: Oct. 31, 2022
-- Expert Disclosure (Initial): Nov. 21, 2022
-- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): Dec. 19, 2022
-- Expert Discovery Cut-off: Jan. 16, 2023
-- Motion for Class Certification Jan. 20, 2023
Due:
-- Opposition to Mtn for Class Feb. 10, 2023
Cert. Due
-- Reply in support to Mtn for Feb. 24, 2023
Cert. Due:
-- Hearing got Motion for Class March 3, 2023
Certification:
Primerica is a company that provides insurance, investment and
financial services to middle income families in the United States
and Canada.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NroAX6 at no extra charge.[CC]
PROPETRO HOLDING: OFPR, et al., Seek Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NYKREDIT PORTEFOLJE
ADMINISTRATION A/S, OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, OKLAHOMA LAW ENFORCEMENT RETIREMENT SYSTEM, OKLAHOMA POLICE
PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, OKLAHOMA CITY EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF DETROIT,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PROPETRO HOLDING CORP., DALE REDMAN, JEFFREY SMITH, IAN DENHOLM,
and SPENCER D. ARMOUR III,Case No. 7:19-cv-00217-DC (W.D. Tex.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their
motion for class certification, appointment of Plaintiffs as Class
Representatives and appointment of Bernstein Litowitz and Grant &
Eisenhofer as Class Counsel.
The case presents strong claims on behalf of a class that lost
millions of dollars following defendants' admissions that they
misrepresented the adequacy of ProPetro's internal controls.
Certification of this action on behalf of a class will provide a
critical step to ensuring the ability of investors to recover their
losses. Securities cases are extremely well-suited to class action
treatment and are routinely certified, the Plaintiffs contend.
The Plaintiffs' claims are brought under the Securities Act of 1933
(Securities Act) and Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Exchange Act) alleging material misrepresentations or omissions.
Pursuant to Rule 23, Plaintiffs seek certification of a class
consisting of:
"all persons and entities who (a) purchased, or otherwise
acquired ProPetro common stock on the open market from March
17, 2017 to March 13, 2020, both dates inclusive, and were
damaged thereby; or (b) purchased ProPetro common stock in or
traceable to the Company's March 17, 2017 Initial Public
Offering. The Plaintiffs request that, pursuant to Rule 23,
the Court certify this case as a class action and: (a)
appoint Plaintiffs as class representatives; and (b) appoint
co-lead counsel, Bernstein Litowitz, and G&E as Class
Counsel.
ProPetro provides hydraulic fracturing and complementary services
to upstream oil and gas companies.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 27,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xhOzuq
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq.
James A. Harrod, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER &
GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
E-mail: jeroen@blbglaw.com
jim.harrod @blbglaw.com
- and -
Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
485 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 722-8500
Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
E-mail: dberger@gelaw.com
cmoyna@gelaw.com
- and -
Gerald T. Drought, Esq.
Frank B. Burney, Esq.
MARTIN & DROUGHT, P.C.
Bank of America Plaza, 25th Floor 300
Convent Street San Antonio, Texas 78205
Telephone: (210) 227-7591
Facsimile: (210) 227-7924
E-mail: gdrought@mdtlaw.com
fburney@mdtlaw.com
- and -
Ronald A. King, Esq.
CLARK HILL PLC
Lansing, MI 48906
Telephone: (517) 318-3015
Facsimile: (517) 318-3068
E-mail: rking@clarkhill.com
ROBERT HAMMER: Zelaya, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISABEL ZELAYA, et al., v.
ROBERT HAMMER, et al., Case No. 3:19-CV-00062- TRM-CHS (E.D.
Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the proposed Class and authorizing the 42
U.S.C. sections 1985(3) and 1986 claims to proceed as
class claims;
"all Latino individuals working at the Southeastern
Provision meatpacking plant in Bean Station, Tennessee on
April 5, 2018 who were detained;"
2. designating Ms. Gonzalez Cruz and Mr. Zapote Hernández as
Class Representatives;
3. appointing as class counsel the Plaintiffs' attorneys and
law firms; and
4. approving that notice of this action be provided to the
Class.
The Proposed class representatives Maria del Pilar Gonzalez Cruz
and Catarino Zapote Hernandez hereby move, pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs
seek certification of their claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1985(3)
for conspiracy to violate equal protection and section 1986 for
failure to prevent those violations.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 31,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tgJfoK
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Meredith B. Stewart, Esq.
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
201 Saint Charles Avenue, Suite 2000
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 486-8982
Facsimile: (504) 486-8947
E-mail: meredith.stewart@splcenter.org
- and -
Norma Ventura, Esq.
Julia Solorzano, Esq.
Sharada Jambulapati, Esq.
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
P.O. Box 1287
Decatur, GA 30031
Telephone: (404) 521-6700
Facsimile: (404) 221-5857
E-mail: norma.ventura@splcenter.org
julia.solorzano@splcenter.org
sharada.jambulapati@splcenter.org
- and -
Araceli Martinez-Olguin, Esq.
Facundo Bouzat, Esq.
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
3450 Wilshire Blvd. No. 108-62
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 639-3900
Facsimile: (213) 639-3911
E-mail: martinez-olguin@nilc.org
bouzat@nilc.org
- and -
Arthur R. Bookout, Esq.
Andrew D. Kinsey, Esq.
Stefania A. Rosca, Esq.
One Rodney Square
920 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 651-3026
Facsimile: (302) 434-3026
E-mail: Art.Bookout@probonolaw.com
Andrew.Kinsey@probonolaw.com
Stefania.Rosca@probonolaw.com
- and -
Michelle Lapointe, Esq.
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
P.O. Box 247
Decatur, GA 30031
Telephone: (213) 279-2508
Facsimile: (213)-639-3911
E-mail: lapointe@nilc.org
- and -
Jeremy A. Berman, Esq.
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 735-2032
Facsimile: (917) 777-2032
E-mail: Jeremy.Berman@probonolaw.com
- and -
Eben P. Colby, Esq.
500 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 573-4855
Facsimile: (617) 305-4855
E-mail: Eben.Colby@probonolaw.com
- and -
Felix A. Montanez, Esq.
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
P.O. Box 12463
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (561) 590-1646
Facsimile: (850) 521-3001
E-mail: felix.montanez@splcenter.org
- and -
Joanna Elise Cuevas Ingram, Esq.
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
P.O. Box 170392
Brooklyn, NY 11217
Telephone: (213) 377-5258
Facsimile: (213) 377-5258
E-mail: cuevasingram@nilc.org
- and -
William L. Harbison, Esq.
Phillip F. Cramer, Esq.
John L. Farringer IV, Esq.
SHERRARD ROE VOIGT & HARBISON, PLC
150 3rd Avenue South, Suite 1100
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 742-4200
Facsimile: (615) 742-4539
E-mail: bharbison@srvhlaw.com
pcramer@srvhlaw.com
jfarringer@srvhlaw.com
SHAMROCK CABINET: Millett, et al., Seek to Certify FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL BRANDON MILLETT,
WILLIAM MORGAN, and BRANDON MENDOZA, on behalf of themselves
individually and other similarly situated employees, v. SHAMROCK
CABINET & FIXTURE CORPORATION, Case No. 4:21-cv-00635-GAF (W.D.
Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
conditional certification of a collective action pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
Shamrock Cabinet manufactures wooden home and commercial
furniture.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 27,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3argKOr
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin A. Todd, Esq.
Brad K. Thoenen, Esq.
John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
1501 Westport Road
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 875-9339
E-mail: ktodd@hkm.com
bthoenen@hkm.com
jziegelmeyer@hkm.com
STROM ENGINEERING: Smith Seeks Extension to Oppose Objections
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RALPH SMITH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STROM
ENGINEERING CORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-00147-MRH-PLD (W.D. Pa.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the
deadlines to file his:
1) Opposition to Defendant's Objections to the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation Denying Defendant's
Motion to Strike the Report and Testimony of Dr. Erin
Hatton, Ph.D. and
2) Opposition to Defendant's Objections to the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation Granting Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification such that both briefs would
be due on or before Friday, June 10.
Strom submitted Objections to the Daubert Report and Recommendation
on May 4, 2022. On May 13, 2022, the Plaintiff requested (and the
Court granted) an extension of time to file his opposition to on or
before June 1, 2022.
On May 10, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and
Recommendation that Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
should be granted.
On May 24, 2022, Strom submitted Objections to the Class
Certification Report and Recommendation. The Plaintiff's Opposition
is currently due June 6, 2022.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 27, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Mkbytd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
www.llrlaw.com
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (267) 256-9973
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com
- and -
Michaela L. Wallin, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE P.C.
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: mwallin@bm.net
- and -
Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
KEHOE LAW FIRM
Two Penn Center Plaza
1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone/Fax: (215) 792-6676
E-mail: myarnoff@kehoelafirm.com
- and -
Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
The Employment Rights Group
100 First Avenue, Suite 650
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com
SUMMIT MEDICAL: Class Certification Order in Coleman Suit Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SUMMIT MEDICAL GROUP, INC., D/B/A ST. ELIZABETH
PHYSICIANS, Appellant v. LISA COLEMAN, Appellee, Case No.
2021-CA-0804-ME (Ky. App.), the Court of Appeals of Kentucky
reverses the Kenton Circuit Court's July 6, 2021 order on class
certification.
I. Introduction
The Appellant, St. Elizabeth, seeks interlocutory review of the
Kenton Circuit Court's July 6, 2021, order certifying a class
action pursuant to CR1 23.01 and CR 23.02(c), and appointing
attorney Alan J. Statman as class counsel pursuant to CR 23.07. The
Appellee, Coleman, is the named class representative. St. Elizabeth
argues the circuit court abused its discretion in concluding: (1)
that Coleman, the sole named class member, as represented by
Attorney Statman, "will fairly and adequately protect the interests
of the class"; and (2) that the action meets the superiority and
predominance requirements of CR 23.02(c).
II. Background
Dr. Shaun Jennings, who is employed by St. Elizabeth, was Lisa
Coleman's primary-care physician during the relevant time period.
On June 26, 2012, Coleman was scheduled to see Dr. Jennings for her
annual preventive care/wellness check (the "Office Visit"). As part
of the wellness check portion of her Office Visit, Coleman received
a preventative exam, provided a urine sample, underwent an
electrocardiogram (EKG) test, had her blood drawn, and received a
Tdap vaccination. Dr. Jennings diagnosed Coleman as suffering from
anxiety and depression and wrote her a prescription for fluoxetine
(Prozac). He also prescribed Coleman medication for her thyroid.
On Sept. 9, 2012, Coleman received a bill from St. Elizabeth for
the Office Visit. Upon review, Coleman was surprised to see that
St. Elizabeth had charged her two separate fees for the single
visit: (1) a fee for the wellness examination and related services
(labs, EKG, and vaccination), which was fully covered by Coleman's
insurance; and (2) a separate office visit fee for the additional
treatment she received for her depression/anxiety and thyroid,
which Coleman's insurance only partially covered, leaving her with
a balance of $104.69. After receiving notice from St. Elizabeth
that failure to pay the bill could result in the account being
referred to a collections agency, Coleman paid St. Elizabeth
$54.69, leaving her with a $50 outstanding balance.
Prior to paying the balance of her bill, Coleman did some research
on the internet which led her to believe that she had been wrongly
billed by St. Elizabeth. Before paying the remainder of her bill,
Coleman decided to seek the advice of legal counsel regarding
whether she might have any recourse against St. Elizabeth. She
ultimately contacted the Deters Law Firm and met with then-licensed
attorney Eric Deters. With the assistance of Mr. Deters, Coleman
filed a putative class action complaint against St. Elizabeth in
Kenton Circuit Court on or about Oct. 25, 2012, alleging that she
was "double billed."
The case was originally assigned to Kenton Circuit Court Judge
Martin J. Sheehan. Coleman filed a first amended complaint in
December 2012. In January 2013, St. Elizabeth filed a motion to
deny class certification. This kicked off a brief flurry of
activity in the case that lasted through August 2013, when Judge
Sheehan recused from the case and entered an order certifying the
need for the appointment of a special judge. For reasons that are
not clear from the record, the case was not assigned to a new judge
for over two years.
In October 2015, the case was finally reassigned to Kenton Circuit
Court Judge Kathleen Lape, who continues to preside over the case.
Even though there were several motions pending at the time the case
was reassigned to Judge Lape, including St. Elizabeth's motion to
dismiss the class claims, it does not appear that the pending
motions were ever brought to Judge Lape's attention as part of the
reassignment process or by way of motion by the parties, and
sometime thereafter the file was apparently misplaced somewhere in
the Clerk's Office. As a result, the case lay dormant for another
two years. At some point, the file resurfaced. On Jan. 25, 2017,
the circuit court issued a show cause notice for failure to
prosecute pursuant to CR 77.02(2); at the time the circuit court
issued its notice, there had not been any filings by the parties
since May 29, 2013, a period lasting three years, seven months and
twenty-seven days.
In February of 2017, Coleman, now represented by Stephanie L.
Collins, a different attorney at Deters Law Firm, filed a terse,
three-sentence objection to the circuit court's notice. The
Plaintiffs object to the dismissal." Still, the case continued to
languish with no additional filings for another one year, five
months and fifteen days. Then, on Aug. 10, 2018, the circuit court
entered an order allowing Coleman leave to file her second amended
complaint, certifying a class, and appointing Attorney Collins as
class counsel.
St. Elizabeth immediately appealed the circuit court's August 2018
certification order to the Court of Appeals, Case Number
2018-CA-1238-ME. Around this same time, Attorney Collins left the
Deters Law Firm, and Coleman's case was reassigned to another
attorney at the firm, Frederick Johnson. Counsel Johnson
represented Coleman throughout the first appeal, which culminated
in this Court vacating the circuit court's August 2018
certification order and remanding for additional proceedings. While
we found no error with respect to the circuit court's
determinations as to numerosity, commonality, and typicality, we
determined additional findings were necessary with respect to
adequacy.
Following denial of Coleman's petition to reconsider and expiration
of the time to petition for discretionary review from the Kentucky
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals entered a designation of
finality and returned the record to the Kenton Circuit Court on
June 23, 2020. Shortly thereafter, Attorney Johnson unexpectedly
passed away, at which time Dominick Romeo, also an attorney at
Deters Law Firm, took over the case with the assistance of another
attorney at the firm, Alexander Pertaglia. For the next several
months the parties took additional discovery in preparation for the
upcoming certification hearing, which the circuit court scheduled
for Nov. 5, 2020. The hearing, which lasted approximately two
hours, was conducted in accordance with this Court's remand order
directing the circuit court to reassess class certification under
CR 23.01, and, if certified, for appointment of class counsel
pursuant to CR 23.07.
Attorney Alan J. Statman was the first witness to testify. Attorney
Statman is the managing member of Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC, a
Cincinnati, Ohio law firm. He seeks to be appointed class counsel.
Following the hearing and submission of post-hearing briefs and
other documentary evidence, the circuit court entered an order
certifying a class and appointing Attorney Statman as class
counsel.
As certified by the circuit court, the class includes: All current
and former patients of St. Elizabeth who went to St. Elizabeth for
a preventative care exam and were subsequently charged both a
preventative care visit fee and an additional office visit fee for
same-day service and who incurred a debt for or paid out-of-pocket
for the additional fee.
St. Elizabeth filed the interlocutory appeal of the circuit court's
certification order pursuant to CR 23.06.
III. Analysis
St. Elizabeth argues the circuit court's abuse of discretion in
finding Coleman to be an adequate representative is evinced by (1)
Coleman's lack of a written fee agreement with any attorney or law
firm; (2) her lack of knowledge regarding the legal basis of her
claims; (3) her uncertainty regarding who was representing her at
various points in the litigation; and (4) her lack of overall
involvement in the litigation to date, including allowing the case
to languish for several years.
The Court of Appeals cannot agree with St. Elizabeth that Coleman's
alleged lack of a fee agreement with the Deters Law Firm is a basis
for finding her to be an inadequate representative. St. Elizabeth's
argument in this regard confuses the role of individual counsel and
class counsel. The Court of Appeals also cannot agree that
Coleman's lack of knowledge regarding the exact legal theory behind
her claims is indicative of the fact that she is not an adequate
class representative. While Coleman may not have been able to
articulate the precise legal theory underpinning her claim, she
demonstrated an acute awareness of the underlying facts.
As to St. Elizabeth's final arguments that center on Coleman's lack
of involvement in the case as demonstrated by her inability to
identify the various lawyers who have represented her and her
general passivity as related to the litigation, the Court of
Appeals finds that the circuit court failed to consider how
Coleman's response to the delays indicates her ability (or lack
thereof) to protect the interests of the absent class members in
the future. Coleman failed to offer any explanation whatsoever for
her past dilatory conduct during her testimony. Allowing this case
to proceed with Coleman as the named class representative would
risk the rights of the unnamed class members whom she would
represent.
Having concluded that Coleman fails CR 23.01's adequacy prong, the
Court of Appeals need not consider her additional argument under CR
23.02(c).
IV. Conclusion
Having reviewed the record, the Court of Appeals concludes that the
circuit court abused its discretion when it concluded that Coleman
is adequate to serve as the named representative of the class. It
reverses the Kenton's Circuit Court's July 6, 2021, order on class
certification.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 27, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3r5f9z4a from Leagle.com.
David V. Kramer -- dkramer@dbllaw.com -- Mark D. Guilfoyle --
mguilfoyle@dbllaw.com -- Christopher B. Markus --
cmarkus@dbllaw.com -- in Crestview Hills, Kentucky, Briefs for the
Appellant.
Christopher B. Markus, in Crestview Hills, Kentucky, Oral Argument
for the Appellant.
Alan J. Statman -- ajstatman@statmanharris.com -- Cincinnati, Ohio,
A. Dominick Romeo -- anthonydominickromeo@gmail.com -- in
Independence, Kentucky, Brief for the Appellee.
Alan J. Statman, in Cincinnati, Ohio, Oral Argument for the
Appellee.
TIMESHARE HELP: Scheduling Order Entered in Perrong Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PERRONG v. TIMESHARE HELP
SOURCE, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01085-CFK (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Chad F. Kenney entered a scheduling order as follows:
1. All motions to amend the pleadings and to join or add
additional parties shall be filed by 12:00 p.m. on June
30, 2022.
2. The parties shall move forward to do due diligence
discovery so as to be prepared to mediate the case by
August 1, 2022 with a private mediator.
3. All fact discovery shall be completed by October 18, 2022.
Any motion related to a discovery dispute must be filed at
least 14 days before the deadline for fact discovery.
4. The Plaintiff's expert report(s), if any, shall be
completed on or before November 18, 2022.
5. The Defendant's expert report(s), if any, shall be
completed on or before December 19, 2022.
6. Expert discovery shall be completed by December 19, 2022.
7. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification shall be filed
and served on or before January 18, 2023. Responses to any
such motion shall be filed and served on or before
February 8, 2023.
8. Oral Argument on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
and Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification shall be
held on February 15, 2023, at 9 a.m. in Courtroom 11B.
9. Depending on the dispositions of those motions and if
necessary thereafter, a scheduling conference will be put
into place by the Court in order to determine the
deadlines for pretrial filings and a trial date certain.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tb6VL1 at no extra charge.[CC]
TRAEGER PELLET: Yates Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL YATES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and
NORMAN L. JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. TRAEGER PELLET GRILLS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 2:19-cv-00723-BSJ (D. Utah), the
Plaintiffs seeks leave to file a motion for class certification and
Memorandum in Support that exceeds the page limitations set forth
in DUCivR 7-1(a)(4)(A)(i).
Traeger Pellet Grills is a manufacturer of wood pellet grills for
outdoor cooking.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 27, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NUj6E5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jared D. Scott, Esq.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
50 West Broadway, No. 700
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2035
Telephone: (801) 534-1700
E-mail: jscott@aklawfirm.com
- and -
Karl S. Kronenberger, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, Esq.
Liana W. Chen, Esq.
KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP
150 Post Street, Suite 520
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 955-1155
E-mail: karl@KRInternetLaw.com
jeff@KRInternetLaw.com
liana@KRInternetLaw.com
TRAEGER PELLET: Yates, Jones File Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL YATES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and
NORMAN L. JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. TRAEGER PELLET GRILLS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 2:19-cv-00723-BSJ (D. Utah), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for
class certification.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has been lying to the
public for years, but its own internal records reveal the truth.
The Defendant sells millions of barbeque wood pellets ("Wood
Pellets") each year by presenting them as one product -- namely a
premium "flavor" wood such as mesquite—when they are instead made
from a less desired and lower priced "base" wood such as alder. The
Defendant's misrepresentations violate Utah and California consumer
protection statutes, and individual lawsuits would be impracticable
due to the large number of affected consumers and small amount at
issue for each. Thus, the Court should certify this lawsuit as a
class action under Rule 23.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 31,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ziYXU0
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jared D. Scott, Esq.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
50 West Broadway, #600
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2035
Telephone: (801) 534-1700
E-mail: jscott@aklawfirm.com
- and -
Karl S. Kronenberger, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, Esq.
Liana W. Chen, Esq.
KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP
150 Post Street, Suite 520
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 955-1155
E-mail: karl@KRInternetLaw.com
jeff@KRInternetLaw.com
liana@KRInternetLaw.com
TRANSWORLD SYSTEM: Hoffman Bid for Class Status Renoted to Sept. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTHER HOFFMAN, et al., v.
TRANSWORLD SYSTEM, Case No. 2:18-cv-01132-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Thomas S. Zilly entered a minute order as follows:
(1) The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is renoted
to September 2, 2022.
(2) The Court grants the parties' stipulated motion to
continue the trial date and related deadlines, and issues
the following amended schedule:
-- Jury Trial set for: April 3, 2023
-- Motions related to expert July 21, 2022
witnesses (e.g., Daubert
motion) due by and noted
on the motions calendar for:
-- Responses to expert-related August 15, 2022
motions due by:
-- Replies in support of September 2, 2022
expert-related motions
due by:
-- Responses to Plaintiffs' August 8, 2022
motion for class
certification due by:
-- Reply in support of September 2, 2022
Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification due
by:
-- Dispositive motions (which July 21, 2022
have not yet been filed)
due by and noted on the
motions calendar for
September 2, 2022:
-- Responses to dispositive August 22, 2022
motions due by:
-- Replies in support of September 2, 2022
dispositive motions
due by:
-- Mediation per LCR 39.1(c) January 30, 2023
held no later than:
-- Letter of compliance per February 6, 2023
LCR 39.1(c) filed by:
Transworld Systems is a debt collection agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zh4EC8 at no extra charge.[CC]
TROON GOLF: Kennedy Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TAYLOR KENNEDY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TROON GOLF, LLC; INDIGO SPORTS, LLC;
OB SPORTS GOLF MANAGEMENT, LLC; TROON RESTAURANT HOLDINGS, LLC; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 22CV397276, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on June 1, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-03193 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime, failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay meal period premiums, failure to authorize
and permit rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, failure to timely pay final wages upon termination,
failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to reimburse
business expenses, and unfair business practices.
Troon Golf, LLC is a management services company, headquartered in
Scottsdale, Arizona.
Indigo Sports, LLC is an operator of golf courses, headquartered in
Virginia.
OB Sports Golf Management, LLC is a management services company,
headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Troon Restaurant Holdings, LLC is a restaurant management company
based in Scottsdale, Arizona. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Patricia A. Matias, Esq.
Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor 695 Town Center Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 800-7900
Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
E-mail: patricia.matias@ogletree.com
mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com
- and –
Andrew B. Levin, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Esplanade Center III, Suite 800
2415 East Camelback Road
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 778-3700
Facsimile: (602) 778-3750
E-mail: andrew.levin@ogletree.com
TYSON FOODS: 3 Classes Certified in Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No.
16 C 8637 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Thomas M. Durkin of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
denies the Defendants' Daubert motions, and grants the Plaintiffs'
motions for class certification.
I. Introduction
The Purchasers of chicken meat (a product known as "Broilers")
allege that the Broiler producers conspired to raise prices in
violation of the Sherman Act. At the outset of the case, the Court
appointed interim class counsel for three classes of purchasers:
(1) direct purchasers (the "Directs"); (2) commercial and
institutional indirect purchasers (the "Indirects"); and (3)
end-user consumers (the "End Users"; and all three classes
together, the "Plaintiffs").
Each class has moved for certification pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23. The Plaintiffs rely on expert opinions to
support their motions. The Directs' expert is Dr. Colin A. Carter.
He has degrees from the University of California at Berkeley and is
a Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the
University of California. The Indirects' expert is Dr. Russell W.
Mangum III. He earned masters and doctoral degrees from the
University of Southern California and is a Senior Vice President at
Nathan Associates, Inc., an economic consulting firm. The End
Users' expert is Dr. David L. Sunding. He has degrees from the
University of California at Berkeley and is President of The
Brattle Group.
The Defendants have moved to exclude those experts pursuant to
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert. They also produced an
expert witness, but the Plaintiffs have not moved to exclude his
testimony. The Defendants' expert is Dr. John H. Johnson, IV. He
has a Ph.D. in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and is CEO of Edgeworth Economics, LLC.
The Court held a two-day hearing on May 10-11, 2022, and heard
testimony from the parties' experts. Judge Durkin's opinion
addresses all three classes' motions for certification and the
Defendants' corresponding Daubert motions.
II. Analysis
The Court may certify a class of plaintiffs pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) if: (1) the class is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of
law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs in the case seek certification under
Rule 23(b)(3), which requires them to demonstrate that: (1) "the
questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members"; and (2) "that a
class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy."
The proposed class definitions are as follows.
For the Directs: All persons who purchased raw Broilers directly
from any of the Defendants or their respective subsidiaries or
affiliates either fresh or frozen, in the form of: whole birds
(with or without giblets), whole cut-up birds, or parts (boneless
or bone in) derived from the front half of the whole bird, for use
or delivery in the United States from Dec. 1, 2008 until July 31,
2019.
For the Indirects: All entities that purchased Broilers indirectly
from a Defendant or named co-conspirator in an Indirect Purchaser
State2 for their own use in commercial food preparation from Jan.
1, 2009, until July 31, 2019.
Excluded from the Indirect class are: Natural persons who purchased
Broilers for their personal use and not for commercial food
preparation; purchases of Broilers directly from Defendants;
purchases of Broilers for resale in unaltered form; purchases or
Broilers from an intermediary who has further processed the
Broiler; the Defendants; the officers, directors or employees of
any Defendant; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling
interest; and any affiliate, legal representative, heir or assign
of any Defendant; any federal, state governmental entities, any
judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of
her/her immediate family and judicial staff, any juror assigned to
this action; and any co-conspirator identified in the action.
For the End Users: All persons and entities who indirectly
purchased the following types of raw chicken, whether fresh or
frozen: whole birds (with or without giblets), whole cut-up birds
purchased within a package, breast cuts or tenderloin cuts, but
excluding chicken that is marketed as halal, kosher, free range,
organic, diced, minced, ground, seasoned, flavored or breaded --
from the Defendants or co-conspirators for personal consumption in
the Repealer Jurisdictions from Jan. 1, 2012 to July 31, 2019.
Other than arguments about certain class representatives and the
application of state laws, the Defendants generally do not
challenge whether the Plaintiffs have met their burden to establish
the four elements of Rule 23 subsection (a). That is likely because
those elements are easily met in the case.
Judge Durkin finds that (i) the Defendants have produced electronic
sales data identifying thousands of direct purchases of Broilers;
(ii) the Defendants do not challenge the adequacy of class counsel
and there is no evidence in the record indicating that the
representatives' interests are not aligned with the class as a
whole for purposes of the litigation; (iii) the question of whether
the Defendants illegally conspired to restrict supply and increase
the price of Broilers is common to each class, as are questions
about the nature of the conspiracy, whether the conspiracy caused
the price increase, and what is the appropriate measure of damages;
and (iv) the differences in bargaining power do not undermine
typicality in the case.
Having found that all three classes satisfy the elements of
subsection (a) of Rule 23, Judge Durkin proceeds to address
subsection (b). He finds that the opinions of Carter, Mangum, and
Sunding are based on reliable methods and data, and therefore
should not be excluded. He also finds that the Plaintiffs' experts
have demonstrated that common impact can be shown with common
evidence. Accordingly, he finds further that the Plaintiffs have
demonstrated that common questions of law and fact predominate in
the case.
As to superiority, Judge Durkin finds that class treatment of the
Plaintiffs' claims is superior to joinder of individual claims. He
does not perceive there to be another "available method" to address
the Plaintiffs' claims that is superior to certifying a class.
III. Conclusion
Therefore, the Plaintiffs' motions to certify classes of direct
purchasers, indirect purchasers, and end user consumers are
granted, and the Defendants' motions to exclude the opinions of
Carter, Mangum, and Sunding are denied.
Lastly, the End Users supported their motions with expert opinions
from Dr. Luis Cabral and Cameron R. Azari, Esq. Cabral offered
opinions about whether Agri Stats served to promote anticompetitive
"information exchanges." Azari offered opinions about "whether it
would be possible to identify end-user consumers who purchased
class products in grocery stores and other retailers." While
helpful, and likely relevant to summary judgment and/or trial, the
Court found their opinions unnecessary to determining whether the
Consumer class should be certified. Thus, the Defendants' motions
to exclude their testimony are denied without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 27, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3zzrybdz from
Leagle.com.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Parties Seeks to Amend Discovery, Sched Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN CONNELLY et al., v.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01487-RDA-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order amending the current Discovery Order and Scheduling
Order as follows:
-- Plaintiffs' expert disclosures: April 21, 2023
-- Defendants' expert disclosures: June 9, 2023
-- Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert August 26, 2023
disclosures:
-- Close of discovery: May 19, 2023
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to September 15, 2023
file motion for class
certification:
-- Defendants' opposition: November 8, 2023
-- Plaintiffs' reply: December 8, 2023
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., is the North American
operational headquarters, and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of
automobile companies of Germany. VWoA is responsible for five
marques: Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, and Volkswagen cars.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3th0xSM at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven T. Webster, Esq.
Aaron S. Book, Esq.
WEBSTER BOOK LLP
300 N. Washington St., Suite 404
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (888) 987-9991
E-mail: swebster@websterbook.com
abook@websterbook.com
- and -
Kevin R. Dean, Esq.
John D. O'Neill, Esq.
W. Christopher Swett, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Boulevard
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 216-9000
Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
E-mail: kdean@motleyrice.com
jdoneill@motleyrice.com
cswett@motleyrice.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Turner A. Broughton, Esq.
Justin S. Feinman, Esq.
WILLIAMS MULLEN, P.C.
200 South 10th Street, 16th Floor
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 420-6000
Facsimile: (804) 420-6507
E-mail: tbroughton@williamsmullen.com
jfeinman@williamsmullen.com
- and -
Michael B. Gallub, Esq.
Homer B. Ramsey, Esq.
Brian T. Carr, Esq.
HERZFELD & RUBIN , P.C.
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 471-8500
Facsimile: (212) 344-3333
E-mail: mgallub@herzfeld-rubin.com
hramsey@herzfeld-rubin.com
bcarr@herzfeld-rubin.com
WELLS FARGO: Hartsock Sues Over Unauthorized Transactions on Zelle
------------------------------------------------------------------
LUKE HARTSOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A.; and EARLY WARNING SERVICES, LLC d/b/a ZELLE, Defendants, Case
No. 2:22-cv-00759 (W.D. Wash., June 1, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, unjust enrichment,
violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and the Washington
Consumer Protection Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to warn consumers
about the risks of using Zelle, a money transfer service that they
own. The Defendants are allegedly aware of the widespread fraud on
Zelle but failed to educate and protect consumers from situations
where they are fraudulently induced and requested by a third party
to provide their account information that results in authorized
debits from their accounts. Moreover, the Defendants have not
reversed or refunded all funds of disputed and unauthorized
transactions despite their obligations to do so, says the suit.
Wells Fargo & Company is a financial services company headquartered
in San Francisco, California.
Wells Fargo Bank, NA is a national bank association, with its
primary place of business in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
Early Warning Services, LLC, doing business as Zelle, is a provider
of payment and risk management solutions based in Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laura R. Gerber, Esq.
Nathan L. Nanfelt, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
E-mail: lgerber@kellerrohrback.com
nnanfelt@kellerrohrback.com
WHITING PETROLEUM: Faces Siegfried Suit Over Proposed Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA SIEGFRIED, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEVIN S. MCCARTHY; JANET L.
CARRIG; PAUL J. KORUS; SUSAN M. CUNNINGHAM; LYNN A. PETERSON; ANNE
TAYLOR; and DANIEL J. RICE IV, Defendants, Case No. 2022-0470-
(Del. Ch., May 31, 2022) is brought against the Defendants for
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with Whiting's pending merger with Oasis Petroleum,
Inc., in a cash-and-stock transaction (the "Proposed Merger"),
which require the affirmative votes of holders of a majority of
Whiting's outstanding common stock (the "Merger Proposal").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the registration
statement that the boards of directors of both Whiting and Oasis
have prepared as proxy solicitation materials, finalized and filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on
Schedule 14A on May 24, 2022 (the "S-4"), omits material
information concerning financial advisor compensation and conflicts
of interest that Whiting's stockholders need to cast informed votes
on the Merger Proposal, including the decision whether to seek
appraisal.
Specifically, the Whiting Board has failed to disclose (a) the
amount of fees that Whiting's financial advisor for the Proposed
Merger, Citigroup Capital Markets, Inc. ("Citi"), has historically
received from Oasis and its affiliates in the two years before Citi
rendered its fairness opinion to the Whiting Board in connection
with the Proposed Merger, and (b) the extent to which the Board was
aware of, and sought to manage, Citi's actual or potential
conflicts of interest before Citi delivered its fairness opinion
letter to the Board on March 7, 2022, says the suit.
Whiting's stockholders will be unable to cast fully informed votes
on the Merger Proposal at the upcoming June 28, 2022 special
stockholder meeting, or make a fully informed decision before that
meeting whether to seek appraisal, without disclosure of all
information concerning Citi's historical compensation, Citi's
actual and potential conflicts of interest, and the Board's
knowledge of and efforts to manage such conflicts, added the suit.
WHITING PETROLEUM CORPORATION operates as an oil and gas
exploration company. The Company acquires, explores, produces, and
supplies petroleum products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael C. Wagner, Esq.
Julie M. O'Dell, Esq.
SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
1000 North West Street, Suite 1501
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone:(302) 652-8400
Email: mcw@skjlaw.com
jmo@skjlaw.com
- and -
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
Telephone: (888) 715-1740
WILLIAM CROUCH: Fain, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER FAIN, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WILLIAM CROUCH, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00740 (S.D.W.Va.), the
Plaintiffs Christopher Fain and Shauntae Anderson ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying the following class:
"All transgender people who are or will be enrolled in
West Virginia Medicaid and who are seeking or will seek
gender-confirming care barred by the Exclusion;"
2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and
3. appointing Nichols Kaster, PLLP; Lambda Legal Defense and
Education Fund, Inc.; and The Employment Law Center, PLLP,
as Class Counsel.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 31,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xjX0W8
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Walt Auvil, Esq.
THE EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER, PLLC
1208 Market Street
Parkersburg, WV 26101
Telephone: (304) 485-3058
Facsimile: (304) 485-6344
E-mail: auvil@theemploymentlawcenter.com
- and -
Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
Nicole J. Schladt, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street, Suite 4700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: aprakash@nka.com
nschladt@nka.com
- and -
Sasha Buchert, Esq.
LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION
FUND, INC.
1776 K Street, N.W., 8th Floor
Washington, DC 20006-2304
Telephone: (202) 804-6245
Facsimile: (202) 429-9574
E-mail: sbuchert@lambdalegal.org
- and -
Avatara Smith-Carrington, Esq.
Tara L. Borelli, Esq.
Carl Charles, Esq.
Nora Huppert, Esq.
LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION
FUND, INC.
3500 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 219-8585
Facsimile: (214) 489-9140
E-mail: asmithcarrington@lambdalegal.org
tborelli@lambdalegal.org
ccharles@lambdalegal.org
nhuppert@lambdalegal.org
WYNN RESORTS: Schuster Files Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as A. RICHARD SCHUSTER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WYNN RESORTS HOLDINGS, LLC, WYNN MA, LLC, and WYNN RESORTS, LTD.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-11679-ADB (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order:
1. certifying a Class and a Subclass:
-- Class is defined as follows:
"All slot-playing customers of the Encore Boston Harbor
casino, who are members of the Wynn Rewards system,
who, during the period from June 15, 2019 through the
present date, received at least one ticket for less
than $1.00 from one of Encore's ticket redemption units
that was either unredeemed or inserted into a slot
machine at Encore (the “Class”).
-- The proposed Subclass is defined as follows:
"All slot-playing customers of the Encore Boston Harbor
casino, who are members of the Wynn Rewards system,
who, during the period from June 15, 2019 through the
present date, received at least one ticket for less
than $1.00 from one of Encore's ticket redemption units
that was either unredeemed or inserted into a slot
machine at Encore and resulted in the player losing
money from the same gambling session during which the
ticket was wagered;"
2. appointing him as representative of the Class; and
3. appointing Law Office of Joshua N. Garick, P.C. and Pastor
Law Office, LLP as class counsel.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 31,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tdxDD6
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua N. Garick, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA N. GARICK, P.C.
34 Salem Street, Suite 202
Reading, MA 01867
Telephone: (617) 600-7520
E-mail: Joshua@GarickLaw.com
- and -
David Pastor, Esq.
PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP
63 Atlantic Avenue, 3d Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 742-9700
E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com
WYZE LABS: Hepworth Sues Over Wyze Cam's Security Vulnerability
---------------------------------------------------------------
BREE HEPWORTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WYZE LABS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00752 (W.D. Wash., June 1, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for breach of implied warranty, breach of express
warranty, fraudulent concealment/ fraud by omission, unjust
enrichment, violations of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act and the
Washington Consumer Protection Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive trade
practices in the manufacturing and sale of its Wyze Cam V1, Wyze
Cam V2, and Wyze Cam V3 products. Specifically, for at least three
years, the Defendant knew of and concealed a Wyze Cam security
vulnerability that allowed unauthenticated, remote access to videos
and images stored on local memory cards. Had the Plaintiff and
similarly situated consumers known the defect, they would not have
purchased Wyze Cam products or would have paid less for them, the
suit asserts.
Wyze Labs, Inc. is a company that specializes in smart home
products and wireless cameras based in Seattle, Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cynthia J. Heidelberg, Esq.
BRESKIN JOHNSON TOWNSEND, PLLC
1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 652-8660
E-mail: cheidelberg@bjtlegal.com
- and –
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H street NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.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 ***