/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220628.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, June 28, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 122
Headlines
856 RIVER: De La Cruz Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
AFRICAN METHODIST: Alexander Suit Moved From D. Md. to W.D. Tenn.
AFRICAN METHODIST: Carmichael ERISA Suit Transferred to W.D. Tenn.
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Dec. 23
AMAZON WEB: Former Employee Convicted in Capital One Hack
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Action Filed Over Grocery Delivery Fees
AMERICAN FAMILY: Park Has Standing to Pursue Case, Court Rules
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Faces Wood Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
AVIS BUDGET: Court Denies Pines' Bid to Intervene in Bacon Suit
B4 PIZZA: Long Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Under FLSA
BAM TRADING: Roche Freedman Discloses Securities Class Action
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Carrigan Sues Over Mislabeled Cold and Flu Drugs
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Misrepresents Passenger Vehicles, Suit Says
CAMBER ENERGY: Faces Coggins Shareholder Suit in Texas Court
CARVANA CO: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unfair Business Practices
CASE-MATE INC: Clement Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
CHRISTIANITY TODAY: Discloses Subscribers' Info, Prestel Alleges
CIGNA HEALTH: Underpaid In-Network MultiPlan Claims, Suit Says
COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit Over Stablecoin Trading Platform
COZY CORNER: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Enriquez Suit Says
DAKOTA PLAINS: Court Approves Revised Class Notice in Gruber Suit
DEERE & CO: Casselbury Antitrust Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. Ill.
DEGLER ENTERPRISES: Philo Sues Over Construction Staff's Unpaid OT
DENTONS DAVIS: Faces Proposed Class Suit Over COBRA Notices
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Kuznicki Law Reminds of August 1 Deadline
DEUTSCHE TELEKOM: Lieff Cabraser Files Federal Antitrust Lawsuit
EARLY WARNING: Fails to Protect Customers From Fraud, Suit Claims
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Antibacterial Wipes
ELECTROLUX HOME: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Shannon Alleges
FAMILY DOLLAR: Lacy Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
FAMILY DOLLAR: Robertson Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
FAMILY DOLLAR: Sharp Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
FAMILY DOLLAR: Smith Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL: Dernoshek Seeks to Certify Classes
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Vehicles' Transmission Issues
FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Osei-Tutu Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Wages
GERMAN AMERICAN: Settles Overdraft Fees Class Action Suit for $3-M
HARLEM CANDLE: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HIGH ENERGY: Fails to Pay Pizza Delivery Drivers' Mandated Wages
HOGARTH CALIFORNIA: Osborn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HORNE LLP: Lee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HYATT CORP: $990K Class Settlement in Crump Suit Wins Prelim. Nod
IONQ INC: Rosen Law Reminds of August 1 Deadline
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth Health Crisis in Wis., Lake Holcombe Says
JUUL LABS: Community Sues Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth
JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Benton School Says
JUUL LABS: Faces East Allen Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Faces McDowell Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
JUUL LABS: Faces Webster County Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Lewis County Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction
JUUL LABS: Luck School Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Stanley-Boyd Area Claims
JUUL LABS: Pepin Area Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign in Wis.
JUUL LABS: Plum City School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Pocahontas County Suit Claims Youth Health Crisis
JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette to Youth, Southwest Allen Alleges
JUUL LABS: Spooner Area Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign
JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Lincoln County Claims
KNIX WEAR: Seeks Sanctions for Lawyers Behind Consumers' Suit
LESLIES POOLMART: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Cortinas Sues Over Improper Withholdings of Labor
LITIGATION PRACTICE: Scheduling Order Entered in Beech Class Suit
MACK DERMATOLOGY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MACY'S CREDIT: Caldera Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
MAZDA MOTORS: New York District Court Issues Summons in Bey Suit
META PLATFORMS: Advertisers Can Pursue Class Action Over Ad Rates
NEMAK USA: Harrington Seeks OT for Hourly-Paid Employees Under FLSA
ONE DAY ROOFING: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
PACIFIC BELL: Denial of Class Certification in Meza Suit Reversed
PAPARAZZI LLC: Jewelry Products Aren't Lead, Nickel Free, Suit Says
PENNSYLVANIA: Lawsuit Seeks $45-M in Refunds Over Handling Fees
PETLAND INC: Covino Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
PILGRIM AUTO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Delahaye Class Suit Says
PILOT TRAVEL: Bid to Compel Waltrip to Arbitration Granted in Part
PIONEER METAL: Unlawfully Pays Non-Exempt Employees, Moore Says
PORCH.COM INC: Liberti CFA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
PROBST PRESERVES: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PROFESSIONAL DIRECTIONAL: Snoddy FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. Tex.
PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: 6th Cir. Vacates Order Dismissing Cowley Suit
RALPH LAUREN: Faces Class Suit Over Sweaters' Pima Cotton Labels
RED ROBIN: Avalos-Aviles Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
REMINGTON SEEDS: Haenlein Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
RIO GRANDE: Uranga Seeks Minimum Wages for Delivery Drivers
ROB ROY: Palkon Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
SAN DIEGO: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit for $1-M
SANTANDER SECURITIES: U.S. Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit
SCHNECK MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Data Breach
SCHNECK MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
SCHNECK MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
SECURITY KING: Clarke Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
SGE MGMT: $10-Mil. Award of Attorneys' Fees in Torres Suit Affirmed
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Berry Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SHIELDS HEALTH: Fails to Protect Consumers' Info, Smith Suit Says
SIEMBRA LLC: Faces Martinez Labor Suit Over Time Shaving Violations
SIETE BUCKS SPIRITS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SIMPLE GIRL: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SMART OILFIELD: Misclassifies Pump Supervisors, Guthrie et al. Say
SOCLEAN INC: Faces Monaghan Suit Over Misleading Cleaning Devices
SOULCYCLE INC: S.D. New York Dismisses Dominguez Class Suit
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Wakefield Claims
SPICE LAB: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
T-MOBILE USA: Faces Lawsuit for Shutting Down Sprint's Networks
TALKING RAIN: Soft Drinks Contain Artificial Flavoring, Tatum Says
TATE LEGACY: Howard Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
TERRAFORM LABS: Faces Securities Suit for Misleading Investors
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces $2 Billion Class Action Over Defective Vehicles
TRINET HR: Huang, et al., Directed to File Class Cert Reply Brief
TRUEBLUE INC: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Sued Over Misleading Performance Statements
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Malik Sues Over Breach of Employment Contract
UNILEVER PLC: Portnoy Law Discloses Securities Class Action
UNILEVER PLC: Robbins LLP Reminds of August 15 Deadline
UNION PACIFIC: Waldschmidt ADA Suit Moved From D. Colo. to D. Neb.
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Settles Data Breach Class Action Suit
VANGUARD CHESTER: Richardson Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Abbott Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
VYERA PHARMACEUTICALS: $1.5MM in Attys.' Fees Awarded in BCBSM Suit
VYERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Judgment & Order Entered in BCBSM Suit
VYSTAR CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in Employees' Class Suit
VYSTAR CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in LaChapelle Suit
WAFFLE HOUSE: Mason Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Texas
WARNER MUSIC: Fails to Account Digital Streaming Income, Hall Says
WEST MONROE: Sanford Named Interim Class Counsel in Daly Suit
WHY BE NORMAL: Hyder Seeks Minimum Wages, OT for Delivery Drivers
WORLD WRESTLING: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
WYZE LABS: Quevedo Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging
YEXT INC: Johnson Fistel Discloses Securities Class Action
YEXT INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of August 16 Deadline
*********
856 RIVER: De La Cruz Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julio De La Cruz, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. 856 River Ave.
Rest. Corp., Georgios Manesis, Stamatios Manesis, and Vasilios
Manesis, Case No. 1:22-cv-05080 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2022) seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid minimum
wages, overtime wages, spread-of-hours, unlawfully deducted wages,
liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York State Labor Law, and and the NYLL's Wage Theft
Prevention Act.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals are
individuals who have worked for Defendants in similarly-titled,
hourly paid position, during the statutory period.
The Plaintiff was required to work in excess of 40 hours per week,
but never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times
his regular rate of pay for those hours. The Plaintiff contends
that Defendants had a policy and practice commonly known as "time
shaving". Specifically, the Defendants would force Plaintiff, and
other similarly situated employees, to clock out for a 30- or
45-minute break, despite the fact that they would not actually
receive an uninterrupted 30- or 45- minute break, says the suit.
As a result, the Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees,
were forced to work off the clock, without pay, during this period,
the suit added.
The Defendants own, operate and/or control Billy's Sports Bar a/k/a
Billy's at the Stadium, located at 856 River Avenue, Bronx, NY
10451. The Individual Defendants possess operational control over
the Corporate Defendant, possess an ownership interest in the
Corporate Defendant, and controls significant functions of the
Corporate Defendant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42 nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
AFRICAN METHODIST: Alexander Suit Moved From D. Md. to W.D. Tenn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled REVEREND CEDRIC V. ALEXANDER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. DR. JEROME V. HARRIS,
BISHOP SAMUEL L. GREEN, SR., TRUSTEES OF THE AFRICAN METHODIST
EPISCOPAL CHURCH MINISTERIAL RETIREMENT ANNUITY PLAN, AFRICAN
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH MINISTERIAL RETIREMENT ANNUITY PLAN,
AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH DEPARTMENT OF RETIREMENT
SERVICES, AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, INC., GENERAL BOARD
OF THE AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, COUNCIL OF BISHOPS OF
THE AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, and JOHN AND JANE DOES
1-20, inclusive, Case No. 8:22-cv-00707, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on June 14,
2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Tennessee assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-01128-STA-jay to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by mismanaging the
African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity
Plan and losing tens of millions of dollars in Plan assets.
African Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc. is an independent
Protestant denomination located in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizbeth Hopkins, Esq.
Scott M. Lempert, Esq.
Susan L. Meter, Esq.
KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, CA 91324
Telephone: (877) 783-8686
Facsimile: (253) 285-1849
E-mail: ehopkins@kantorlaw.net
slempert@kantorlaw.net
smeter@kantorlaw.net
AFRICAN METHODIST: Carmichael ERISA Suit Transferred to W.D. Tenn.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled REV. A. OFFORD CARMICHAEL, JR., and REV. DIANE
CONLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. REV. DR. JEROME V. HARRIS, AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH,
AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH MINISTERIAL RETIREMENT ANNUITY
PLAN, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:22-cv-00386, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee on June 14, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Tennessee assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-01127-STA-jay to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by mismanaging the
African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial (AMEC) Retirement
Annuity Plan and causing tens of millions of dollars losses in
career retirement savings of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
AMEC ministers and employees.
African Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc. is an independent
Protestant denomination located in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dhamian A. Blue, Esq.
Daniel T. Blue, Jr., Esq.
BLUE LLP
205 Fayetteville Street, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 833-1931
Facsimile: (919) 833-8009
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Dec. 23
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Advanced Exteriors, Inc v.
Allstate Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-01539 (D. Colo.), the Hon.
Judge Scott T. Varholak entered an order on motion for class
certification deadlines as follows:
The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.
.[CC]
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class Dec. 23, 2022
certification due:
-- The Defendant's opposition to Feb. 3, 2023
motion for class certification
due:
-- Plaintiff's reply due: Feb. 3, 2023
-- Dispositive Motions due by: Feb. 17, 2023
-- The Status Conference set for April 12,2023 is vacated and
reset for June 15, 2023.
The Allstate Corporation is an American insurance company,
headquartered in Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook
since 1967.[BN]
AMAZON WEB: Former Employee Convicted in Capital One Hack
---------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Bursztynsky at cnbc.com reports that a former Amazon Web
Services employee was convicted of hacking into Capital One and
stealing the data of more than 100 million people nearly three
years ago in one of the largest data breaches in the United
States.
Paige Thompson, who worked for the software giant as an engineer
until 2016, was found guilty on seven federal crimes, including
wire fraud, which carries up to 20 years in prison. The other
charges, illegally accessing a protected computer and damaging a
protected computer, are punishable by up to five years in prison. A
jury found Thompson not guilty of aggravated identity theft and
access device fraud after 10 hours of deliberations, a release
said.
Prosecutors argued that Thompson, who worked under the name
"erratic," created a tool to search for misconfigured accounts on
AWS. That allowed her to hack into accounts from more than 30
Amazon clients, including Capital One, and mine that data.
Prosecutors argued Thompson also used her access to some of the
servers to mine cryptocurrency that went to her own wallet.
"She wanted data, she wanted money, and she wanted to brag,"
Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Friedman said of Thompson
in closing arguments during the week-long trial.
Capital One in December agreed to pay $190 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit over the breach, in addition to an earlier
agreement to pay $80 million in regulatory fines. The data stolen
included about 120,000 social security numbers and roughly 77,000
bank account numbers, according to the complaint.
An attorney representing Thompson did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.
U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnik set Thompson's sentencing for
Sept. 15. [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Action Filed Over Grocery Delivery Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien at Legal Newsline reports that an upset Amazon Prime
member is suing the company over the cost of grocery delivery.
Dena Griffith filed suit against Amazon.com on June 7 in Seattle
federal court, claiming there is a $9.95 delivery fee from Whole
Foods markets even though Prime advertises free delivery.
This new fee popped up in October 2021, the suit says.
"Accordingly, Amazon's representations that Prime members will
receive 'FREE Delivery' and 'FREE 2-Hour Grocery Delivery' are
false, misleading and likely to deceive a reasonable consumer," the
lawsuit says.
"Amazon's $9.95 'service fee' is in essence a hidden delivery fee.
In fact, the service fee was 'put in place to help cover delivery
operating costs like equipment and technology without raising
product prices,'" it adds, quoting a CNN report.
The suit was filed by Borde Law and the Law Offices of Ronald A.
Marron. [GN]
AMERICAN FAMILY: Park Has Standing to Pursue Case, Court Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT PARK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY and AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I.,
Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-171-wmc (W.D. Wis.), Judge William M.
Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin issued an Opinion and Order holding that the Plaintiff
has adequately responded to the Court's show cause order, and
concluding that the Plaintiff has standing to pursue the case.
I. Background
In this putative class action, Plaintiff Park asserts claims on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals under
the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2724, and
related California statutory claims based on Defendants American
Family Life Insurance Co. and American Family Mutual Insurance Co.,
S.I.'s disclosure of drivers' license numbers, including that of
Park's.
The Court recently dismissed a case asserting similar claims for
lack of standing -- Baysal v. Midvale Indem. Co., No.
21-CV-394-WMC, 2022 WL 1155295 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 19, 2022). In light
of that decision, the Court directed the Plaintiff in the present
case to show cause as to why his case should not be dismissed for
lack of standing.
Having reviewed the Plaintiff's response, Judge Conley concludes
that he has sufficiently alleged an injury, namely identity theft,
as a consequence of the Defendant's alleged disclosure of his
driver's license number. As such, he concludes that Park has
standing to pursue his claim and the court has subject matter
jurisdiction over the action.
II. Opinion
Critically, in the complaint, Judge Conley finds that the Plaintiff
recognizes that the drivers' license numbers alone would not be
sufficient to forge an identity, but alleges that drivers' license
numbers, in addition to other personal information already gathered
from other sources, can provide an opening for fraud, including
applying for credit cards or loans or opening bank accounts. Unlike
in Baysal, the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged an "objectively
reasonable likelihood that an injury will occur," namely in the
form of identity theft, and that injury is "fairly traceable" to
the alleged data disclosure.
As such, Judge Conley concludes that the Plaintiff has adequately
explained his basis for standing in response to the Court's show
cause order. Of course, nothing about this decision precludes the
Defendants from filing a motion to dismiss for lack of standing if
they believe that the Court's analysis is flawed or can direct the
court to other Seventh Circuit cases that call the Court's holding
into question. Similarly, the fairly unique circumstances as to the
Plaintiff may make it difficult for him to pursue class
certification.
III. Order
In light of the foregoing, Judge Conley holds that the Plaintiff
has adequately responded to the Court's show cause order, and
concludes that the Plaintiff has standing to pursue the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 17, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/42n86yry from Leagle.com.
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Faces Wood Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
LARAINE WOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. APRIA HEALTHCARE GROUP LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01030-SMB
(D. Ariz., June 15, 2022) contends that the Defendant promotes and
markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited phone
calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff brings this Complaint to:
1. stop Defendant's practice of placing calls using an
artificial or prerecorded voice to the cellular and landline
telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior
express written consent;
2. enjoin Defendant from continuing to call consumers using
pre-
recorded messages 9 who did not provide their prior express
written consent to receive them; and
3. obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct.
The Plaintiff proposes the following Class definition:
"All persons within the United States who (a) received a
telephone call on his or her landline or cellular telephone; (b)
made by or on behalf of Defendant; (c) in which an artificial or
prerecorded voice was played; (d) at any time in the period that
begins four years before the filing of the complaint in this
action to the date that class notice is disseminated."
The Plaintiff represents, and is a member of, the proposed
Class. Excluded from the Class is Defendant and any entities in
which the Defendant has a controlling interest, Defendant's
agents and employees, any Judge and/or Magistrate Judge to whom
this action is assigned, and any member of such Judges’ staffs
and immediate families.
Apria Healthcare provides medical equipment and clinical
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ykrivoshey@bursor.com
AVIS BUDGET: Court Denies Pines' Bid to Intervene in Bacon Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ABIGAIL BACON, ARCADIA LEE, JEANNINE DEVRIES, LISA
GEARY, RICHARD ALEXANDER, YVONNE WHEELER, AND GEORGE DAVIDSON, on
behalf of themselves and the putative class, Plaintiffs v. AVIS
BUDGET GROUP, INC. AND PAYLESS CAR RENTAL, INC, Defendants, Civ.
No. 16-05939 (KM) (JBC) (D.N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey denies Michael T.
Pines' motion to intervene as a plaintiff in the action.
The Court also denies Mr. Pines' request to coordinate the case
with two other cases in this district and a case in California
state court.
The two other cases in this district are Valli v. Avis Budget
Rental Car Group, LLC, et al., 2:14-cv-06072-CCC-JBC (D.N.J) and
Mendez v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., et al., 2:11-cv-06537-CCC-JSA
(D.N.J.). The other case in California state court is Kramer, et
al. v. Avis Budget Group Inc., No. 37-2018-00067024-CU-BT-CTL
(Superior Court, County of San Diego, California).
I. Background
The putative class action alleges that Avis's subsidiary Payless
charged the Plaintiffs' credit cards for ancillary car rental
services that they had not agreed to. The case was first filed in
2016 and has been extensively litigated, including an appeal of a
summary judgment decision, where it was affirmed. The proposed
class period for the case is six years prior to the date of the
complaint, Sept. 26, 2016.
On Sept. 28, 2021, Michael T. Pines moved for permissive
intervention under Rule 24(b). Pines alleges that he rented a car
from Avis on July 12, 2021, and that his debit card was charged
immediately for the car, despite Avis informing him that the card
would be charged only upon returning the car. The car was then
impounded and retrieved by Avis, which charged Pines' debit card
more than $6,000. Wells Fargo, the bank which provided his debit
card, refused to credit Pines for the disputed payments to Avis.
Mr. Pines has filed a case against Avis related to this conflict in
King County Superior Court in the State of Washington. The
Plaintiffs and the Defendants in the case, as well as Wells Fargo,
have filed briefs in opposition to Pines' motion to intervene.
Pines has filed replies to all three opposition briefs. The motion
is fully briefed and ripe for decision.
II. Discussion
A. Rule 24(b) Intervention
The permissive intervention provision, Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b), which
grants the court discretion to allow intervention "on timely
motion" where the movant "has a claim or defense that shares with
the main action a common question of law or fact." Ultimately, the
decision of whether to grant or deny permissive intervention lies
within the Court's discretion. Courts also "consider various
factors, including whether the proposed intervenors will add
anything to the litigation and whether the proposed intervenors'
interests are already represented in the litigation." Finally,
Courts also consider whether the proposed intervention will unduly
delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties'
rights.
Judge McNulty denies Pines' motion for permissive intervention
under Rule 24(b). First, he opines that permissive intervention is
not prudent in the case. His conflict with Avis has little to do
with the case except in the broadest sense that both cases involve
(different types of) allegedly improper charges. Pines' action does
not share a main question of law or fact with the case.
Second, the Plaintiffs' brief points out that that Pines' motion to
intervene comes after five years of intensive litigation in the
case. Not only is Pines' motion untimely, but the claim he asserts
against Avis did not even arise until five years after the end of
the class period; those circumstances make it highly unlikely that
he has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common
question of law or fact.
Finally, assuming arguendo that Pines has any interest in the case,
there is no demonstration that the Plaintiffs would not adequately
represent those interests. Where the interests of the proposed
intervenors are already represented in the action, courts typically
deny such applications as a discretionary matter. In addition,
Pines' intervention would certainly inject unrelated issues and
delay resolution of the case, which has already been through more
than five years of litigation, and thus prejudice the Plaintiffs
and the Defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3).
B. Request to coordinate cases
In addition, Pines argues that three active cases, two in this
District and one in California state court, are related to the case
and must be "coordinated." The California case involves allegations
that Avis did not properly protect customers' data. Pines says
nothing about the content of the other two cases, except that they
also involve allegations that Avis overcharged customers in some
manner.
Judge McNulty finds that the three cases cited by Pines do not
sufficiently share common questions of law or fact with the case to
justify consolidation or coordination. Valli, for example, involves
Avis charging customers for traffic infractions while Mendez
involves toll charges. Kramer, which is pending in California state
court, is not a suitable candidate for coordination. Judge McNulty
therefore denies Pines' request to consolidate or otherwise
coordinate these actions.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons he set forth, Judge McNulty denies Pines' motion to
intervene, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b), and also denies his
request for coordination with other cases. An appropriate order
follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 15, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5hy6e52h from Leagle.com.
B4 PIZZA: Long Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA LONG, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. B4 PIZZA, LLC, and MASON BURNHAM, Case No. 1:22-cv-00591
(W.D. Tex., June 16, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages
and overtime hours owed to herself and similarly situated delivery
drivers employed by the Defendants at its Domino's stores under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the suit.
The Defendants require their delivery drivers to maintain and pay
for safe, legally-operable, and insured automobiles when delivering
pizza and other food items. The Defendants' delivery drivers incur
costs for gasoline, vehicle parts and fluids, repair and
maintenance services, insurance, depreciation, and other expenses
while delivering pizza and other food items for the primary benefit
of Defendants, the suit added.
The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise
stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katherine Serrano, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
E-mail: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com
BAM TRADING: Roche Freedman Discloses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roche Freedman LLP and Dontzin Nagy & Fleissig LLP filed a class
action lawsuit on June 15, 2022 on behalf of investors in the
crypto-asset "UST" against BAM Trading Services Inc. ("Binance
U.S."), as well as Binance U.S.'s CEO Brian Shroder, alleging that
Binance U.S. violated federal and state securities laws when it
sold UST to investors beginning on or around April 13, 2022.
The lawsuit, brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, alleges violations of Sections 5, 12(a)(1),
and 15 of the 1933 Securities Act, Sections 5, 15(a)(1), 20, and
29(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, and Sections 25110,
25130, 25503, 2521, 25501.5(a), and 25504 of the California
Securities Act, based on Binance's sale of UST, despite UST being a
security, without any registration statement in effect and without
registering as a securities exchange or broker-dealer. According to
the lawsuit, these actions led to investors being wiped out when
UST crashed in May 2022, losing essentially all of its $18 billion
market capitalization over the span of a few days.
The lawsuit is thus brought on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased UST tokens on Binance U.S. from April 13, 2022, to
the present. The action is captioned Jeffrey Lockhart v. BAM
Trading Services Inc. and Brian Shroder, Case No. 53:22-cv-03461
(N.D. Cal.).
Binance U.S. is a Delaware company headquartered in Palo Alto,
California. Mr. Shroder is a resident of California.
For investors who purchased UST securities on Binance U.S. during
the Class Period, you are a member of this proposed Class and may
be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff, which is a
court-appointed representative for the Class, by complying with the
relevant provisions for the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"). See 15 U.S.C. Sec
78u-4(a)(2)(A)(i)-(vi); Sec 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II); Sec
77z-1(a)(2)(A)(i)-(vi); Sec 77z-1(a)(3)(A)(i)(II). If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
August 16, 2022. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in
order to share in any possible recovery. You may retain counsel of
your choice to represent you in this action.
For further inquiries regarding this matter, please contact Kyle
Roche (kyle@rochefreedman.com) at 646-970-7509.
About Roche Freedman
Founded in 2019, Roche Freedman LLP is a national law firm
comprised of innovative and tech-savvy attorneys with stellar
credentials. With experience from some of the most prestigious
litigation firms in the country, RF's legal team has a successful
and decades-long track record of consistently achieving outstanding
results in high-stakes and notable disputes on behalf of
sophisticated clients. RF's legal team has extensive experience
litigating complex commercial, securities, antitrust, class action
and derivative matters on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants
in a broad range of industries. RF couples a unique brand of
creative thinking and technical expertise with well-balanced
aggressive advocacy to achieve impressive results in complex,
high-value, and class action matters. As the firm continues to
grow, it has focused on building a diverse attorney pool with
cross-functional expertise.
Founding Partner Kyle W. Roche is a recognized thought leader in
the cryptocurrency arena and has published multiple articles on the
intersection of cryptocurrency and law, including in the Wall
Street Journal. He is a frequent speaker and lecturer on the topic,
having guest-lectured at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
and having served on the Keynote panel at Harvard Law School's
Blockchain, Fintech, & the Law conference. Founding partner Ted
Normand is RF's most experienced litigator and has both prosecuted
and defended numerous complex cases under the federal securities
and antitrust laws and in national class actions.
The firm's attorneys are currently litigating numerous
cryptocurrency cases. RF has been appointed as lead counsel in the
seminal cryptocurrency class actions, Leibowitz et al. v. iFinex
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-09236 (S.D.N.Y.), Clifford et al. v.
Tron Foundation et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02804 (S.D.N.Y.), Messieh
& Lee v. HDR Global Trading Limited & Arthur Hayes et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-03232 (S.D.N.Y.), Valenti v. Dfinity Foundation et al.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-06118 (N.D. Cal.).
About Dontzin Nagy & Fleissig
Based in New York, Dontzin Nagy & Fleissig LLP is an elite
litigation boutique that regularly represents plaintiffs and
defendants in high-stake trials in state and federal courts and
arbitrations throughout the United States, as well as in
jurisdictions around the globe. We are often retained by clients
shortly before trial to help secure victory in their most important
disputes. We are litigation generalists that do not specialize in
any single practice area or discipline. Indeed, our attorneys have
successfully represented clients in complex commercial matters
involving securities, cryptocurrencies, class actions, mergers and
acquisitions, corporate governance, RICO, patents, copyright, trade
secrets, regulatory enforcement, and criminal defense, among other
areas.
Partner Tibor L. Nagy is an experienced trial lawyer who as lead
counsel has successfully tried numerous cases, including class
claims, with hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars at
stake. He has been recognized as an "Elite Boutique Trailblazer" by
the National Law Journal, in Benchmark Litigation's "Under 40 Hot
List," and as one of Crain's New York Business's "Notable Hispanic
Leaders & Executives." Counsel Gregory N. Wolfe is a trial lawyer
who has successfully represented plaintiffs and defendants in a
variety of complex matters seeking hundreds of millions to billions
of dollars in damages. The firm routinely represents companies,
investors, and other individuals in cryptocurrency disputes and has
been doing so for over half-a-decade-a lifetime in the world of
cryptocurrency. [GN]
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Carrigan Sues Over Mislabeled Cold and Flu Drugs
------------------------------------------------------------------
MAUREEN CARRIGAN; KERRY LAMONS; NANCY ZIDE; and KHARI WHEELER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-03780 (D.N.J., June 14, 2022) is a class action lawsuit
against the Defendant regarding the manufacture, distribution, and
sale of its Alka-Seltzer-branded "Non-Drowsy" over-the-counter cold
and flu medicines that contain Dextromethorphan Hydrobromide ("the
"Non-Drowsy Products").
According to the complaint, the Non-Drowsy Products state
prominently on the front of their product packaging that they are
"Non-Drowsy" and "Day" products. The Defendant also led the
Plaintiffs and other consumers to believe that the Non-Drowsy
Products are for use during the "Day" and intended to be used
during waking hours.
However, one of the active ingredients in the Non-Drowsy Products
is Dextromethorphan Hydrobromide ("DM HBr"). While the average
consumer may not be aware, drowsiness is a documented side effect
of DM HBr at dosages recommended by the Defendant in respect to the
Non-Drowsy Products. Authorities such as the National Library of
Medicine and Mayo Clinic list drowsiness as a side effect of this
ingredient, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs and Class members purchased the Non-Drowsy Products
with the expectation that the products would not cause drowsiness
and that they were intended to be used during waking hours. Because
the Defendant sold products to consumers that cause drowsiness, the
Plaintiffs and the Classes were deprived of the benefit of their
bargain.
BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC discovers and manufactures healthcare and
medical products. The Company offers products and services such as
pharmaceuticals, blood glucose monitoring systems, lancing devices,
oral contraceptives, and diagnostic testing. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 640-3913
Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313)303-3472
Email: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Email: mreich@zlk.com
cmaccarone@zlk.com
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Misrepresents Passenger Vehicles, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards at topclassactions.com reports that BMW overstates
the driving range of some of its i3 passenger vehicles in cold
weather, a new class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Brian Hurst filed the class action complaint against BMW
of North America and BMW AG June 15 in a New Jersey federal court,
alleging breach of warranty, fraud and negligent
misrepresentation.
The complaint relates to certain 2014 through 2018 model year i3
BMW passenger vehicles sold in the United States. Some of the i3
models were powered solely by a high voltage lithium ion battery.
Other models had an electric battery and a small gasoline engine to
extend the range of the vehicle.
According to the complaint, BMW made false representations that
materially overstate the range of the vehicles "whether in battery
only mode or in gasoline engine range extender mode in cold
weather."
An electric vehicle's usefulness is directly related to the
distance the automobile can travel before needing a recharge, the
lawsuit states.
BMW's promotional advertising for the vehicles stated that mileage
range for vehicles operating solely on the electric motor was 81
miles and the range of vehicles equipped with the optional gasoline
range extender engine was advertised as 150 miles, it says.
"These advertised ranges are far beyond the range Class Vehicles
can provide in states where cold weather exists in the winter, such
as New Jersey," the lawsuit alleges.
Range Limited to 39 Miles in Winter
In Hurst's case, the window sticker indicated that the mileage
range for his vehicle operating solely on the electric motor was 72
miles.
However, he was only able to obtain a range of 39 miles on a fully
charged battery in the winter months.
"Nowhere in Defendants' advertising and/or marketing materials are
the adverse effects of cold weather on vehicle range discussed," he
says.
"As a result, Plaintiff and members of the proposed class cannot
operate their respective Class Vehicles over distances that they
expected to be able to travel, and owners of Class Vehicles with
range extending engines are forced to spend money on gasoline to
obtain the advertised electric motor range."
The plaintiff is suing for breach of warranty, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation. He's seeking certification of the class action,
damages, fees, costs and a jury trial.
Meanwhile, BMW is recalling 917,106 vehicles, many for the third
time, over fears a faulty heater could cause engine fires.
What do you think of the allegations in this BMW class action
lawsuit? Let us know in the comments!
The plaintiff is represented by Gary S. Graifman, Daniel C. Edelman
of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & GRaifman, P.C. The BMW i3 Class Action
Lawsuit is Brian Hurst v. BMW of North America, LLC et al., Case
No. 2:22-cv-03928-SDW-AME in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey. [GN]
CAMBER ENERGY: Faces Coggins Shareholder Suit in Texas Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Camber Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Report for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 8, 2022, that on October 29, 2021, a
class action complaint was filed against the company, its CEO and
CFO captioned "Ronald E. Coggins, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Camber Energy, Inc., et al.," in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division.
The plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages alleged to have been
suffered by them as a result of the defendants' violations of
federal securities laws.
Camber Energy, Inc., based in Houston, Texas is primarily engaged
in the acquisition, development and sale of crude oil, natural gas
and natural gas liquids.
CARVANA CO: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unfair Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Stoogenke at wsoctv.com reports that the online used car
retailer Carvana is facing multiple legal battles, including a
class-action lawsuit, Channel 9 has learned.
Multiple drivers have complained to Action 9 investigator Jason
Stoogenke recently about a range of issues involving the car
dealer.
Mark Crowell said he traded in his vehicle and bought a Chevy
Silverado on Carvana.
He showed Stoogenke the paperwork, and it said he doesn't owe any
money. But Crowell said Carvana kept calling him, saying he still
owed more than $5,900.
"It's really hurtful because I've worked really hard to get my
credit where it is," Crowell said. "(I'm) not sure what else to
do."
Crowell said Carvana gave him the runaround. "But I don't have six
more thousand to throw out . . . I don't," he said.
North Carolina attorney general Josh Stein told Stoogenke that he's
received more than 60 complaints about Carvana that involve all
sorts of issues, but mainly, "It has to do with paperwork. They're
failing to give DMV the title paperwork," Stein said. "They're
failing to give inspection reports and the proper paperwork to the
buyer and to the lenders who need it in order to do the financing,"
he added.
Stein says Carvana's Charlotte location is under probation until
November. It is allowed to operate, but he said he's keeping a
close eye on it. "We are working to hold Carvana accountable,"
Stein added.
Wake County DMV would not let Carvana sell cars for six months
because of tag, title and other issues. That suspension ended in
January.
Customers in another state are suing Carvana, claiming the company
did not register their cars in a timely manner, so they were stuck
paying for vehicles they could not legally drive. They said it
should be a class-action lawsuit, which would open it to other
drivers, including ones in the Carolinas. Since the case is so new,
the judge won't decide on that for a while.
Stoogenke contacted Carvana to try to help Crowell. He asked the
company about all these legal issues, but the company did not
respond in time for this report. [GN]
CASE-MATE INC: Clement Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
OLIVIER CLEMENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CASE-MATE, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-01052-RBD-DCI (M.D.
Fla., June 15, 2022) contends that the Defendant promotes and
markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text
messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.
To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
text messaging, including to individuals who have registered their
telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, and to
those who have not provided the Defendant with their prior express
written consent as required by the FTSA, the lawsuit says.
The Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the requisite
policies and procedures and training required under the TCPA and
its implementing regulations. The Defendant's telephonic sales
calls have allegedly caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm,
including violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages,
annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy, the lawsuit
adds.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and
statutory damages on behalf of himself and the Class members, as
defined below, and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of
himself individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.
The Classes that Plaintiff seeks to represent are defined as:
-- DNC Class:
"All persons in the United States who from four years prior
to
the filing of this action through the date of class
certification (1) were sent more than one text message call
within any 12-month period; (2) where the person's telephone
number that had been listed on the National Do Not Call
Registry for at least thirty days; (3) regarding Defendant's
property, goods, and/or services; (4) who did not purchase or
transact business with Defendant during the eighteen months
immediately preceding the date of the first
message; and (5) who did not contact Defendant during the
three months immediately preceding the date of the first
message with an inquiry about a product, good, or service
offered by the Defendant."
-- IDNC Class:
"All persons within the United States who, within the four
years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date
of class certification, (1) were sent two or more text
messages within any 12-month period, (2) regarding Defendant's
property, goods, and/or services."
-- FTSA Class:
"All persons in Florida who, (1) were sent a telephonic sales
call regarding Defendant's property, goods, and/or services,
(2) using the same equipment or type of equipment utilized to
call Plaintiff.
-- Seller Identification Class:
"All persons within the United States who, within the four
years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date
of class certification, (1) were sent two or more text
messages within any 12-month period, (2) regarding Defendant's
property, goods, and/or services, (3) that did not disclose
the name of the individual caller, the name of the person or
entity on whose behalf the call is being made, or a telephone
number or address at which the person or entity may be
contacted."
Case-Mate, Inc. provides smartphone accessories.[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
CHRISTIANITY TODAY: Discloses Subscribers' Info, Prestel Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARL PRESTEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHRISTIANITY TODAY INTERNATIONAL (CIT), Case No.
1:22-cv-00551-JMB-SJB (W.D. Mich., June 15, 2022) alleges that
Defendant CTI rented, exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed
detailed information about the Plaintiff's Christianity Today
magazine subscription to data aggregators, data appenders, data
cooperatives, and list brokers, among others, which in turn
disclosed his information to aggressive advertisers, political
organizations, and non-profit companies.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has received a barrage of
unwanted junk mail due to the alleged conduct. By renting,
exchanging, and/or otherwise disclosing Plaintiff's Private Reading
Information during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period, CTI
violated Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act (the
"PPPA"), says the suit.
The complaint says that the documented evidence confirms these
facts. For example, a list broker, NextMark, Inc., offers to
provide renters access to the mailing list titled "CHRISTIANITY
TODAY MASTERFILE Mailing List", which contains the Private Reading
Information of 281,227 of CTI's active U.S. subscribers at a base
price of "$110.00/M [per thousand]," (i.e., 11 cents apiece), added
the suit.
By renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing the Private Reading
Information of its Michigan-based subscribers during the relevant
pre-July 31, 2016 time period, CTI violated the PPPA.
The Plaintiff was a subscriber to Christianity Today magazine,
including during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period.
CTI is the publisher of religious-focused publications, including
Christianity Today.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
William Kalas, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
ssa@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
wk@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
Arun G. Ravindran, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
aravindran@hedinhall.com
CIGNA HEALTH: Underpaid In-Network MultiPlan Claims, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi at classaction.org reports that a proposed class
action alleges Cigna Corporation has unlawfully underpaid health
insurance claims submitted by consumers for services covered
through MultiPlan, the country's largest third-party network.
More than 1.2 million healthcare providers contract with MultiPlan,
the case says, and are part of the "MultiPlan Network." Health
benefit plan issuers and claims administrators, such as the
defendant, also enter into contracts with MultiPlan to gain access
to this network. Indeed, the suit says, one way Cigna communicates
its relationship with MultiPlan is by the placement of a MultiPlan
logo on insurance cards offered to members.
According to the case, providers who have entered contracts with
MultiPlan agree to accept a set percentage of a billed charge as
payment in full. The lawsuit stresses that this means a provider
agrees not to hold a patient liable for the difference between
their original billed charges and the discounted MultiPlan rate,
the lawsuit stresses.
The case argues that Cigna, as a MultiPlan client, is required to
apply the contracted MultiPlan rates when processing insureds'
claims instead of the "lower reimbursement methodology" it uses in
calculating reimbursement for out-of-network healthcare providers.
The suit out of Connecticut alleges, however, that Cigna, in
certain instances, does not apply the contracted MultiPlan rates to
an insured's claim.
By applying the "lower reimbursement methodology" it uses for
non-participating providers, Cigna paid less in benefits, did not
give proposed class members the benefits they were entitled to, and
left them exposed to the threat of "balance billing," the suit
says.
"By engaging in this misconduct, Cigna underpaid Plaintiffs'
claims," the suit alleges. "It also breached its fiduciary duties,
including its duty of [sic] to honor written plan terms and its
duty of loyalty, because its conduct serves Cigna's own economic
self-interest and elevates Cigna's interests above the interests of
plan member participants."
For fully insured Cigna plans, in which the company administers the
plans, receives premiums from insureds, andpays medical expenses
from its own corporate assets, the company's self-interest is
obvious, the lawsuit says. Namely, the less Cigna pays in benefits,
the more money it gets to keep, the case states.
For self-funded plans like those held by proposed class members,
however, Cigna's alleged underpayment of MultiPlan claims "advances
its self-interest" in that it allows the company to pull in higher
administrative fees, the filing claims. The reason for this,
according to the case, is that Cigna, under its contracts with
employers who've established self-funded health insurance plans,
receives a "savings" fee that is larger when the company causes a
particular plan to pay less for a given claim.
By paying less than the amounts required under MultiPlan contracts,
Cigna is able to increase the amount of "savings" it claims and the
resulting fees it stands to receive, according to the case.
The lawsuit looks to represent all individuals in the United States
who were insured under a Cigna Plan governed by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and who received healthcare
services from a provider that contracted indirectly with Cigna via
a MultiPlan contract, where the Cigna plan requires that the
allowed amount be based on the MultiPlan contract, and where Cigna
set the allowed amount for such services below the rate required by
the MultiPlan contract. [GN]
COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit Over Stablecoin Trading Platform
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shashank Bhardwaj, writing for Forbes India, reports that
Terra-USTC fiasco's domino effect continues to spiral in industry
big-wigs as a class-action lawsuit was filed against Coinbase on
June 16. The lawsuit stated that the trading platform did not
conduct due diligence before listing the TerraUSD Classic (USTC)
stablecoin.
The lawsuit also alleged that the platform failed to disclose its
financial relationship with Terraform Labs. This is the second
class-action lawsuit in the works against Coinbase. A lawsuit was
filed last month concerning the November de-pegging of the GYEN
stablecoin (GYEN).
TerraUSD was deemed like every other stablecoin, with a low
possibility of de-pegging against the USD. So when the news of the
crash of $17.5 billion came to light, everyone was shocked.
The lawsuit alleges that Coinbase was negligent to undertake proper
checks on Terraform Labs before listing USTC and misrepresented
USTC's risk as an algorithmic stablecoin.
The lawsuit puts out a comparison of stablecoin information
provided by different trading platforms such as Robinhood, Gemini,
and Kraken to that provided by Coinbase and officially states that
"rather than disclosing the nature of TerraUSD as uncollateralised,
controlled by an algorithm, and highly risky, Coinbase passed it
off as just another stablecoin."
The lawsuit also claims that Coinbase Ventures, the firm's
investment company, was among one of the major investors in
Terraform Labs, adding to the group's need to keep TerraUSD's
volatile nature hidden from the public eye.
Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman and Erickson Kramer
Osborne are the law firms that are representing the plaintiffs and
classes in the lawsuit case. The latter is also defending the
plaintiffs in a dispute filed on May 13 against Coinbase and
GMO-Z.com Trust concerning the November de-pegging of the Japanese
yen-pegged GYEN stablecoin. GMO-Z.com is accused of neglecting its
duties to the plaintiffs and the class in many ways, including with
the design of stablecoin.
GYEN's overall valuation had risen after being listed by Coinbase
and then, later on, had dropped within a week. This resulted in the
company freezing some of their user's wallets, and allegedly, as
per the lawsuit, users also lost some funds, stating that the
amount was "untold millions". [GN]
COZY CORNER: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Enriquez Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Olga Enriquez, Maria Szelai, and Elvira Olmos on behalf themselves
and others similarly situated, v. Peter Iatrides, in his individual
capacity, Cozy Corner Diner & Pancake House, Inc., Good Taste,
Inc., Good Taste Three, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03144 (N.D. Ill.,
June 15, 2022) seeks to remedy nonpayment of overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the persons they
seek to represent are former tipped server employees working in
Defendant Iatrides' restaurants. The various Cozy Corner entities
pay their servers a subminimum hourly wage under the tip-credit
provisions of the FLSA and IMWL. The action further seeks to remedy
the illegal deduction of tips from the paychecks of Olga Enriquez,
Maria Szelai, Elvira Olmos (the Servers) and other members of the
Server class in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act, and in violation of the tip credit provisions of
the FLSA and IMWL, says the suit.
Defendant Peter Iatrides owns and operates several restaurants in
Chicago that do business as "Cozy Corner" but have different
locations and corporate identities.
As a remedy for Defendants' acts, Plaintiffs seek relief, on behalf
of themselves and similarly situated workers, including unpaid
minimum wages, the amounts illegally deducted from their pay,
liquidated damages under the FLSA, state law penalties interest,
and attorney's fees and costs.
Cozy Corner was established in 1977 serving breakfast and lunch
menu items.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jorge Sanchez, Esq.
Baldemar Lopez, Esq.
LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 420-6784
DAKOTA PLAINS: Court Approves Revised Class Notice in Gruber Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JON D. GRUBER, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. RYAN R. GILBERTSON, et al.
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-9727 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jed S.
Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York approves the revised Class Notice.
The class action lawsuit concerns purchases of Dakota Plains
Holdings, Inc. common stock during the period from March 23, 2012
through and including Aug. 16, 2016. Class Representative Gruber,
on behalf of himself and the Class have reached an agreement to a
partial settlement of the Action with the Officer and Director
Defendants for a total of $13.95 million in cash that, if approved,
will resolve all claims in the Action (the "Officer and Director
Defendants' Settlement") against the Officer and Director
Defendants. The Class Representative has entered into a separate
settlement with defendant Ryan R. Gilbertson for his cooperation at
trial against non-settling Defendant Reger.
Following a hearing held on May 31, 2022, the Court granted
preliminary approval to the proposed settlements between the
plaintiff class and Defendant Gilbertson and the so-called Officer
and Director Defendants (i.e., all Defendants other than Gilbertson
and Michael L. Reger). One aspect of that order was the approval of
a form for notifying members of the class about the settlements.
Since that preliminary approval was granted, however, the Court and
a jury heard a six-day trial against Reger, the sole non-settling
defendant. That trial resulted in a verdict of "Liable" on two of
three counts.
Following trial, the Court granted the Plaintiff's counsel leave to
propose revisions to the class notice, which has not yet been sent.
The revision provides information about the trial's outcome and
further proceedings arising therefrom. Pursuant to the schedule set
by the Court, that revised notice was received, and no objections
from any defendant were registered. The Court has subsequently
reviewed the proposed revision, and found it satisfactory.
The revised class notice is therefore approved. All other aspects
of the preliminary approval order remain intact.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 17, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdhnkr55 from Leagle.com.
DEERE & CO: Casselbury Antitrust Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SAMANTHA CASSELBURY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DEERE & CO. d/b/a JOHN DEERE, Case
No. 4:22-cv-04049, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on June 14, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-50202 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of Sections
1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing the repair service
market for John Deere brand agricultural equipment with onboard
central computers known as engine control units (ECUs). John Deere
has deliberately monopolized the market for repair and maintenance
services of its agricultural equipment with ECUs by making crucial
software and repair tools inaccessible to farmers and independent
repair shops. As a result of the Defendant's monopolization, John
Deere and its dealerships have derived supracompetitive profits
from the sale of repair and maintenance services.
Deere & Co., doing business as John Deere, is an agricultural
equipment manufacturer, headquartered in Moline, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC
1835 Market Street, Suite 2626
Philadelphia, PA 19096
Telephone: (267) 314-7980
Email: mreuben@litedepalma.com
sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com
- and –
Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
Jeremy N. Nash, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 623-3000
E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
jnash@litedepalma.com
- and –
Larry S. McDevitt, Esq.
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
11 N. Market Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone: (828) 258-2991
E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com
dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
DEGLER ENTERPRISES: Philo Sues Over Construction Staff's Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR PHILO and SAID ISLAS, Each Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. DEGLER ENTERPRISE, LLC, HILLARY DEGLER
and CHRISTOPHER DEGLER, Case No. 5:22-cv-240 (E.D.N.C., June 15,
2022) seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and
costs as a result of the Defendant's policy and practice of failing
to pay proper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act to Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated.
The Plaintiffs regularly worked over 40 hours in a week. Upon
information and belief, other Construction Workers also regularly
worked over 40 hours in a week. When Defendant paid the Plaintiffs
for hours worked over 40 in a week, the Defendant paid Plaintiffs
their regular rate for those hours. In other words, the Defendant
failed to pay the Plaintiffs an overtime premium for hours worked
over 40 each week, says the suit.
Degler is a freight shipping trucking company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristin G. Oakley,Esq.
RICCI LAW FIRM, P.A.
2221 Stantonsburg Road
Greenville, NC 27834
Telephone: (252) 752-7785
Facsimile: (252) 752-1016
E-mail: kgoakley@riccilawnc.com
- and -
Courtney Harness, 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: harness@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
DENTONS DAVIS: Faces Proposed Class Suit Over COBRA Notices
-----------------------------------------------------------
news.bloomberglaw.com reports that Dentons Davis Brown PC failed to
send a former employee a COBRA notice or inform her how to enroll
in its health insurance program as required when she left, the
employee said in a proposed class action filed in a federal court
in Iowa.
The Iowa-based law firm's failure left Tiffany Schriner unable to
make an informed decision on electing continuing health insurance
coverage, according to the complaint filed in the US District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa. Schriner wasn't able to elect
COBRA due to the firm's failure, the lawsuit says, and she lost her
health insurance coverage as a result.
Schriner says in her complaint that she worked as a paralegal in
the firm's Des Moines offices from May 14, 2018, until she resigned
on May 6, 2022. She and her family received health insurance from
Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Iowa while she participated
in the firm's health plan, according to the June 14 filing.
COBRA requires health plan sponsors to give notice to covered
employees and qualifying beneficiaries of their continuation of
health coverage after their employment ends or after another
qualifying event. Dentons Davis Brown failed to give any such
notice after Schriner's employment ended in May, the lawsuit says.
As a result, Schriner's health insurance was canceled May 31, 2022,
according to the complaint.
Health insurance "is one of the most valuable things employees get
in exchange for working for an employer like defendant," the
lawsuit says. "Insurance coverage has a monetary value, the loss of
which is tangible and an economic harm."
Causes of Action: U.S. Code; Code of Federal Regulations.
Potential Class Size: All participants and beneficiaries of the
plan who weren't sent a COBRA notice during the statute of
limitations period due to a qualifying event and didn't select
continuation coverage.
Relief: A designation of plaintiff as class representative and
plaintiff's council as class council; certification of the class
action; an order for defendant to issue notice to the class at its
expense; a declaration that defendant violated federal law by
failing to send a compliant COBRA notice; penalties in the amount
of $110 per day for each class member that didn't receive a
compliant notice; an order blocking defendant from further COBRA
violations; pre-judgment interest; attorneys' fees and costs.
Response: Dentons Davis Brown didn't immediately respond to a
request for comment.
Attorneys: Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese PC and Edelson
Lechtzin LLP represent the plaintiff and the proposed class.
The case is Schriner v. Dentons Davis Brown PC, S.D. Iowa, No.
4:22-cv-00192, complaint 6/14/22. [GN]
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Kuznicki Law Reminds of August 1 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this
alert to shareholders of Dentsply Sirona, Inc. (NasdaqGS: XRAY), if
they purchased the Company's shares between June 9, 2021 and May 9,
2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders have until
August 1, 2022 to file lead plaintiff applications in the
securities class action lawsuit.
Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at
https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nasdaqgs-xray/https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nyse-hmlp/,
by calling toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email
(dk@kclasslaw.com).
Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to
responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
DEUTSCHE TELEKOM: Lieff Cabraser Files Federal Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
June 17, 2022, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Berger
Montague PC, Hausfeld LLP, and the Law Offices of Kenneth N.
Flaxman P.C. filed a federal class action complaint against
Deutsche Telekom, T-Mobile, and Softbank Group challenging the
merger of T-Mobile and Sprint as a violation of the antitrust laws,
specifically the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act. The case is
brought on behalf of AT&T and Verizon subscribers.
The merger reduced the number of mobile carriers in the U.S. from
four to three and eliminated vibrant competition from Sprint. It
left the three remaining behemoths, the new T-Mobile, AT&T, and
Verizon, in a far less competitive market and gave them the
opportunity to charge more while delivering less. The case alleges
that as a result, AT&T and Verizon retail customers have paid
higher prices on a quality-adjusted basis.
"I'm hard-pressed to think of a more anti-competitive and damaging
acquisition in recent history," said Lieff Cabraser partner Brendan
P. Glackin, who represents the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "Mobile
phones are now integral to American life, and the three carriers
provide mobile wireless service to the vast majority of American
subscribers. The consequences of the merger are currently being
felt in the pocketbook of nearly every person living in this
country and will continue to be felt until competition is restored
and the ill effects of this merger are undone."
The Complaint alleges that before the merger, "T-Mobile and Sprint
were two scrappy upstarts" vying for subscribers by introducing
price cuts and better plan terms. Pre-merger, Sprint frequently
used "competitors' prices as a starting point" and "targeted each
of its three rivals by name and slashed prices accordingly."
T-Mobile similarly advertised itself as the "'Un-carrier,'
introducing one competition-enhancing innovation after another." As
a result, "[r]ates for retail mobile wireless services declined
across the market."
The Complaint goes on to explain, however, that competing as an
"Un-carrier" was "never the long-term plan of Deutsche Telekom,"
T-Mobile's corporate parent in Germany. DT tried for years to find
a merger partner to consolidate the market and boost profits.
According to the Complaint, when the merger finally closed, its CEO
bragged "It's harvest time."
The case alleges further that the only apparent effects of the
merger appear to be less competition and more consumer harm. Real
world post-merger data cited in the Complaint confirms that after
the merger, the competitive landscape shifted and consumers have
less choice. After years of decline in consumer pricing for
wireless services, since the merger quality-adjusted prices have
gone up and introduction of competitive promotions has fallen.
"We seek recovery of overcharges our clients paid due to the
merger, plus restoration of competition in one of the world's
largest and most concentrated markets," said Berger Montague
Chairman Eric L. Cramer, who also represents the plaintiffs. "We
allege that every consumer and small business in the U.S. is paying
the price for this anticompetitive merger, including our proposed
class of AT&T and Verizon customers who, because of the merger, no
longer face any pricing challenges from the former mavericks of the
telecom space."
This case follows an unsuccessful lawsuit filed by ten states to
block the merger and a settlement with the United States Department
of Justice. In both instances, T-Mobile made commitments to
government regulators and the courts to continue to compete
aggressively and at the same time help DISH emerge as a strong
fourth competitor to replace Sprint. The Complaint alleges that
neither promise was fulfilled.
"Courts cannot be expected to predict the future competitive
impacts of proposed mergers with perfect precision. This suit
alleges that the Sprint-T-Mobile merger is one example where
judicial predictions of the merger's effects did not align with
real world outcomes," said Gary I. Smith Jr., a Partner at Hausfeld
LLP. "Private enforcement actions like this one serve an important
function in remediating undesirable effects of a merger that should
not have been, and restoring competitive balance moving forward."
[GN]
EARLY WARNING: Fails to Protect Customers From Fraud, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett at topclassactions.com reports that consumers filed
a number of class action lawsuits recently against financial
institutions accused of not protecting account holders who were
financially injured after being defrauded while using the digital
peer-to-peer payment platform Zelle.
An influx of scams targeting Zelle users prompted a pair of U.S.
senators to write a letter in April to the owner of Zelle, warning
it about the amount of fraud perpetrated on the platform.
Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Robert Menendez, D-N.J.,
accused Zelle owner Early Warning Services LLC of not doing enough
to prevent fraud from occurring on the platform.
The Democratic senators also placed blame on Zelle's owner banks,
including Capital One, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells
Fargo and Truist.
"We seek to understand the extent to which Zelle allows fraud to
flourish and the steps your company is taking to increase consumer
protection and help users recover lost funds," the senators wrote.
Consumers, meanwhile, have since begun going after financial
institutions, claiming they are not doing enough to protect them
from falling victim of Zelle fraud.
Capital One class action accuses bank of refusal to reimburse Zelle
fraud victims
Earlier this month, a Capital One customer who claims he was the
victim of a Zelle scam filed a class action lawsuit against the
bank, arguing it declines to reimburse account holders who are
scammed or exposed to fraud on Zelle.
"Despite the plaintiff's timely alerting Capital One of the fraud,
Capital One refused to reimburse him for the losses," the class
action lawsuit states.
The consumer behind the class action lawsuit claims Capital One
told him it would be unable to put a stop payment on a money
transfer made through Zelle that ended up falling into the hands of
a scammer.
Wells Fargo class action alleges company fails to protect customers
from fraud
Also this month, a consumer filed a class action lawsuit against
Wells Fargo and Zelle over claims the companies fail to protect
them from scammers who target Zelle mobile payment app users.
The consumer behind the class action lawsuit claims he was scammed
out of $7,500, with Wells Fargo eventually reimbursing them for
$3,500, after a scammer pretending to be with the bank convinced
them to send funds.
In addition to allegedly initially declining to reimburse him, the
consumer argues Wells Fargo and Zelle aren't willing to put more
protections in place that would help prevent their customers from
becoming fraud victims.
"The immediacy of Zelle's service has made it a favorite primarily
among consumers, but that has made it a favorite among criminals,
who can access bank accounts directly," the class action lawsuit
states. "Once scammers can scare or trick their victims into
sending money via Zelle, they can siphon away thousands of dollars
in seconds."
A consumer also hit Bank of America with a class action lawsuit
this month that alleges the financial institution fails to disclose
to its account holders the risks of using Zelle for money
transfers.
Further, the consumer behind the class action lawsuit argues Bank
of America declines to reimburse customers who are victims of fraud
through Zelle and that there is "virtually no recourse for
consumers to recoup losses due to fraud."
Navy Federal class action accuses credit union of failing to keep
reimbursement promise
Navy Federal Credit Union, meanwhile, faces claims that it fails to
keep its promise that it will reimburse account holders who lose
money from fraudulent activity on Zelle.
Further, the Navy Federal class action accuses the credit union of
misrepresenting to its customers the safety of using Zelle for
money transfers.
"(Navy Federal) misrepresents and omits a key fact about the
service that is unknown to accountholders: that there is virtually
no recourse for consumers to recoup losses due to fraud," the class
action states.
The consumer behind the complaint claims Navy Federal has a "secret
policy" of not reimbursing account holders who suffer financial
losses due to fraudulent activity on Zelle, regardless of whether
or not it is reported right away. [GN]
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Antibacterial Wipes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett at topclassactions.com reports that Edgewell
Personal Care misleads and deceives consumers by falsely marketing
and labeling that its Wet Ones Antibacterial Hand Wipes "Kills
99.99% of Germs," a new class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Nancy Leboeuf claims Edgwell's Wet Ones products contain
Benzalkonium Chloride (BAC), which she argues is proven to be
"ineffective at killing non-enveloped viruses, certain
gram-negative bacteria and spores."
"BAC-based disinfectants such as Defendants' Products are
ineffective at killing many germs commonly transmitted through
human hands," states the Wet Ones class action.
Leboeuf wants to represent a New York Class of consumers who have
purchased Wet Ones Antibacterial Hand Wipes within the past four
years.
Efficacy Of Wet Ones Antibacterial Wipes Not As High As Stated
Edgewell, Leboeuf argues, is aware it has been "scientifically
proven that BAC-based products do not kill 99.99% of germs and that
no evidence supports their claim that the Products kills 99.99% of
germs."
Leboeuf claims further that, by making an efficacy claim to the
hundredth digit and not placing a modifier between "99.99%" and "of
germs," Edgewell is attempting to "create the clear impression that
it has been scientifically proven that their Products kill 99.99%
of all germs."
"Defendants' Product labels are therefore materially misleading, in
that they plainly state, in a manner giving the impression that it
has been scientifically proven, that their Products kill 99.99% of
germs, when studies show that it does not kill many types of
germs," states the Wet Ones class action.
Leboeuf claims Edgewell is guilty of fraud and unjust enrichment
and in violation of New York General Business Law.
Plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting injunctive and
declaratory relief along with actual, statutory, treble, and
punitive damages for herself and all Class Members.
It was rumored that Walmart may have to recall its Parent's Choice
brand baby wipes last month after reports of parents discovering
possible issues with the product.
The plaintiff is represented by Thiago M. Coelho, Robert Dart,
Carolin Shining, Jonas Mann, Jesse Chen, and Jennifer Leinbach of
Wilshire Law Firm, PLC, and Daniel A. Schlanger of Schlanger Law
Group LLP.
The Wet Ones Antibacterial Wipes Class Action Lawsuit is Leboeuf v.
Edgewell Personal Care Company, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00642, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. [GN]
ELECTROLUX HOME: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Shannon Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KENYA SHANNON, individually and on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02370-MSN-atc (W.D. Tenn., June
14, 2022) alleges the Defendant of willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid
employee at its Memphis, Tennessee manufacturing and warehouse
facility.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for the 30-minute
meal breaks that was automatically "clocked-out" for payroll
purposes and they were not fully relieved of their job duties. As a
result, despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not properly
paid overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation
costs, and other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
Electrolux Home Products, Inc. manufactures appliances. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Tel: (901) 754-8001
Fax: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
FAMILY DOLLAR: Lacy Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Martha Keisha Lacy, Lorraine Bennett-Freeman,
Sheena Bibbs, Nakedra Freeman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Family Dollar Inc., Case No.
3:22-cv-00098 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi, to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Tennessee on June 15, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02379-SHL-tmp to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
Family Dollar -- https://www.familydollar.com/ -- is an American
variety store chain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John W. Barrett, Esq.
BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
404 Court Square N
Lexington, MS 39095
Phone: (662) 834-2488
Fax: (662) 834-2628
Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
- and -
Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq.
Sarah Sterling Aldridge, Esq.
DON BARRETT, P.A.
404 Court Square N.
P.O. Box 987
Lexington, MS 39095-0987
Phone: (662) 834-2628
Fax: (662) 834-2628
Email: saldridge@barrettlawgroup.com
- and -
Gerald Moses Abdalla, Jr., Esq.
ABDALLA LAW, PLLC
602 Steed Road, Suite 200
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 487-4590
Fax: (601) 487-4595
The Defendant is represented by:
P. Ryan Beckett, Esq.
BUTLER SNOW O'MARA STEVENS & CANNADA PLLC
P.O. Box 22567
17th Floor, Deposit Guaranty Plaza
Jackson, MS 39225-2567
Phone: (601) 948-5711
FAMILY DOLLAR: Robertson Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Randall Robertson, Julian A. Graves,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals v. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas LLC, Family Dollar
Services, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00269 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on June 15,
2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02378-SHL-tmp to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Family Dollar -- https://www.familydollar.com/ -- is an American
variety store chain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Janna L. Maples, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Fax: (615) 255-5419
Email: beng@bsjfirm.com
gerards@bsjfirm.com
jannam@bsjfirm.com
- and -
James A. Streett, Esq.
STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
107 West Main
Russellville, AR 72801
Phone: (479) 968-2030
Email: james@streettlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Katherine Church Campbell, Esq.
Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP
3550 South Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 301
Rogers, AR 72758
Phone: (479) 695-6040
Email: kcampbell@fridayfirm.com
- and -
Marshall S. Ney, Esq.
MITCHELL WILLIAMS SELIG GATES & WOODYARD PLLC
380 West Capitol Ave. #1000
Little Rock, AR 72201
FAMILY DOLLAR: Sharp Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Karen Sharp, individually and on behalf all
others similarly situated v. Family Dollar, Dollar Tree Inc., Case
No. 4:22-cv-00269 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Tennessee on June 15, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02376-SHL-jay to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
Family Dollar -- https://www.familydollar.com/ -- is an American
variety store chain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen F. Libby, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN F. LIBBY
294 Washington Avenue
Memphis, TN 38103
Phone: (901) 523-1844
Fax: (901) 523-1857
Email: steve@libbylawfirm.com
- and -
James A. Streett, Esq.
STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
107 West Main
Russellville, AR 72801
Phone: (479) 968-2030
Email: james@streettlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Katherine Church Campbell, Esq.
Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP
3550 South Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 301
Rogers, AR 72758
Phone: (479) 695-6040
Email: kcampbell@fridayfirm.com
- and -
Marshall S. Ney, Esq.
MITCHELL WILLIAMS SELIG GATES & WOODYARD PLLC
380 West Capitol Ave. #1000
Little Rock, AR 72201
FAMILY DOLLAR: Smith Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Vinnie L. Smith, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Family Dollar Inc., Dollar Tree
Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00043 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Tennessee on June 15, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02375-SHL-tmp to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Declaratory
Judgement.
Family Dollar -- https://www.familydollar.com/ -- is an American
variety store chain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory E Bryant, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY E. BRYANT
300 Spring Bldg., Ste. 310
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: (501) 375-3344
Fax: (501) 376-0770
Email: geb@gregbryantlaw.com
- and -
Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
William Thomas Crowder, Esq.
THRASH LAW FIRM
1101 Garland Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: (501) 374-1058
Fax: (501) 374-2222
Email: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net
willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Katherine Church Campbell, Esq.
FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
3550 South Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 301
Rogers, AR 72758
Phone: (479) 695-6040
Email: kcampbell@fridayfirm.com
FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL: Dernoshek Seeks to Certify Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOGAN DERNOSHEK, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. FIRSTSERVICE
RESIDENTIAL INC; FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL CAROLINAS; and NEXTLEVEL
ASSOCIATION SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a HOMEWISEDOCS.COM, Case No.
1:21-CV-00056-CCE-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. granting certifying the Proposed Class and Proposed
Alternative Class;
-- Proposed Class
"All natural persons who, during the Relevant Time
Period, were charged and paid SOUA Fees to FirstService
and HomeWise in North Carolina."
-- Proposed Alternative Classes
"All natural persons who, during the Relevant Time
Period, were charged and paid SOUA Fees to HomeWise
associated with FirstService-managed OAs in North
Carolina;" and
All natural persons who, during the Relevant Time
Period, were charged and paid SOUA Fees to FirstService
associated with FirstService-managed OAs in North
Carolina."
Excluded from the Classes are: (a) any Judge or
Magistrate presiding over this action and members of
their families; (b) Defendants and any entity which
Defendants have a controlling interest, or which has a
controlling interest in Defendants and all legal
representatives; and (c) all persons who properly
execute and file a timely request for exclusion.
2. appointing his counsel as Class Counsel; and
3. appointing him as Class Representative.
FirstService Residential is a property management company in North
America.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 22,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3njIIyN
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
Jeremy R. Williams, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
E-mail: sharris@milberg.com
pwallace@milberg.com
jwilliams@milberg.com
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Vehicles' Transmission Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards at topclassactions.com reports that Ford fails to
properly identify and pay for the diagnosis, repair, and
replacement of the transmission of some of its vehicles, a new
class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Victoria Berghuis filed the class action against Ford
Motor Company June 14 in a California federal court, alleging
violations of state and federal consumer laws.
She alleges that Ford has failed to properly identify and pay for
the diagnosis, repair, and replacement of the transmission of
certain vehicles for 15 years or 150,000 miles for partial zero
emissions vehicles (PZEVs) and super ultra low emissions vehicles,
for which Ford has received a .2 Zero Emissions Credit from the
California Air Resources Board.
Her claims relate specifically to all vehicles distributed by Ford
that are zero or super low emissions vehicles and for which Ford
does not provide 15-year or 150,000-mile coverage relating to the
transmission.
Under the California Emissions Warranty, defects which increase
regulated emissions in low emissions vehicles, such as the Class
Vehicles, shall be covered under warranty for 15 years or 150,000
miles, the lawsuit states.
Transmission defects in the vehicles increase regulated emissions,
cause the Malfunction Indicator Lamp to illuminate, and cause the
vehicle to fail a California smog check, Berghuis says.
Therefore, the transmission in the vehicles should be covered by
the California Emissions Warranty, the lawsuit alleges.
Drivers had to pay out of pocket for repairs
As a result of Ford not providing proper warranty coverage for the
transmission in the affected vehicles, drivers have and are
continuing to pay out of pocket for repairs that should be covered
under the California Emissions Warranty, the lawsuit states.
"Further, as a result of Ford not providing proper warranty
coverage for the transmission in Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the
members of the Class and Subclasses have and are continuing to
suffer damage as a result of purchasing or leasing Class Vehicles
with a deficient warranty which was worth less than the warranty
they were legally entitled to at the time of purchase or lease."
The plaintiff is seeking certification of the class action,
damages, fees, costs and a jury trial.
Meanwhile, Ford has recalled certain 2021 Ford Expedition and
Lincoln Navigator SUVs after a spate of under-hood fires in the
vehicles that have already injured one person.
What do you think of the allegations in this case? Let us know in
the comments!
The plaintiff is represented by Jordan L. Lurie, Ari Y. Basser,
Robert L. Starr and Manny Starr of Pomerantz LLP.
The Ford PZEV Class Action Lawsuit is Victoria Berghuis v. Ford
Motor Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-00871-JLS-KSC in the U.S. District
Court Southern District of California. [GN]
FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Osei-Tutu Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICKAEL OSEI-TUTU, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a
FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE NORTH AMERICA and FRESENIUS HEALTH PARTNERS,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-04992 (S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2022)
is a class and collective action complaint brought against the
Defendants for its alleged illegal pay practices and policies that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as patient care technician
from the date that is 6 years prior to the filing of this
complaint.
The Plaintiff asserts these claims:
-- The Defendants failed to pay regular and overtime wages as
a result of its time shaving policy;
-- The Defendants failed to pay its PCTs' wages on a timely
basis as required by NYLL, instead they were paid on a bi-weekly
basis; and
-- The Defendants failed to provide proper wage notices, and
proper wage statements.
On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated PCTs, the
Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages and regular
wages, liquidated damages for untimely payment of wages, statutory
penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees and litigation costs, and other relief as the Court deems just
and proper.
Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. is a German healthcare
company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Brown, Esq.
BROWN, KWON & LAM LLP
521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Tel: (212) 295-5828
Fax: (718) 795-1642
E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com
GERMAN AMERICAN: Settles Overdraft Fees Class Action Suit for $3-M
------------------------------------------------------------------
duboiscountyfreepress.com reports that Jasper-based German American
Bancorp (Nasdaq: GABC) has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit
that alleged the bank overcharged customers for overdraft fees.
The bank has agreed to pay more than $3 million to the plaintiffs,
though it denies any wrongdoing.
The case was filed by a Marion County resident in 2020. She claimed
she was charged overdraft fees for debit card charges that were
approved at the time of purchase.
"The plaintiffs allege that defendant German American Bancorp.,
Inc. ("GAB") incorrectly assessed the following fees: (1) fees
assessed on debit card transactions when there was a sufficient
balance at the time the transaction was authorized, but there was
an insufficient balance when the transaction subsequently settled;
and (2) fees assessed on a transaction that posted when there were
sufficient funds in the account to cover the transaction. If you
are a Class Member and if the Settlement is approved, you may be
entitled to receive a cash payment from the $3,050,00.00 fund
established by the Settlement."
As part of the settlement, German American is not acknowledging any
wrongdoing.
"Defendant does not in any way acknowledge, admit to, or concede
any of the allegations made in the Amended Complaint, and expressly
disclaims and denies any fault or liability, or any charges of
wrongdoing that have been or could have been asserted in the
Amended Complaint. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be
used or construed as an admission of liability and this Agreement
shall not be offered or received in evidence in any action or
proceeding in any court or other forum as an admission or
concession of liability or wrongdoing of any nature or for any
other purpose, other than to enforce the terms of this Agreement,"
the settlement said. "While Defendant disputes the allegations in
the lawsuit and vehemently denies any liability or wrongdoing, it
enters into the settlement solely to avoid the expense,
inconvenience, and distraction of further proceedings in the
litigation."
A final approval hearing will be held in Indianapolis before the
agreement is finalized. [GN]
HARLEM CANDLE: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Harlem Candle
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Harlem Candle
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05020-VEC (S.D.N.Y., June 15,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Harlem Candle Company -- https://www.harlemcandlecompany.com/
-- is a luxury home fragrance brand specializing in scented candles
inspired by the richness of Harlem.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
HIGH ENERGY: Fails to Pay Pizza Delivery Drivers' Mandated Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON, On behalf of himself and those similarly
situated v. HIGH ENERGY PIZZA, LLC d/b/a DOMINO'S PIZZA, and JEFF
STEGEN, Case No. 4:22-cv-00041 (N.D. Ind., June 15, 2022) seeks
appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on
the Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and
similarly-situated individuals with minimum and overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Indiana Wage
Payment Act.
The Defendants allegedly violated the FLSA by failing to adequately
reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses,
thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated
minimum wage wages for all hours worked.
According to the complaint, all delivery drivers at the High Energy
Domino's stores, including the Plaintiff, have been subject to the
same or similar employment policies and practices, including
policies and practices with respect to wages and reimbursement for
out-of-pocket expenses.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly
situated current and former delivery drivers who elect to opt in
pursuant to FLSA to remedy violations of the FLSA wage and hour
provisions by the Defendants.
The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery driver at one of the High
Energy Domino's locations in Lafayette, Indiana.
The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchises ("High
Energy Domino's" stores), including at least nine Domino's Pizza
franchises in Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. HUNT, LLC
1905 South New Market Street, Ste 168
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Telephone: (317) 743-0614
Facsimile: (317) 743-0615
E-mail: rob@indianawagelaw.com
rfh@indianawagelaw.com
HOGARTH CALIFORNIA: Osborn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hogarth California
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Michael Osborn, individually, and
on behalf of all, others similarly situated v. Hogarth California
LLC, Hogarth Worldwide Inc., Does One through Fifty, Inclusive,
Case No. CGC22598537 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., June 15,
2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints (Class
Action Complaint)."
Hogarth -- https://www.hogarth.com/ -- is a WPP-owned global
company that provides marketing Implementation services, including
all-channel production and language services to blue-chip
international companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel C. Keller, Esq.
MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison St., Ste. 730
Oakland, CA 94612-3547
Phone: 510-394-0455
Fax: 510-832-1101
Email: dkeller@themmlawfirm.com
HORNE LLP: Lee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Horne LLP, et al. The
case is styled as Perrin Lee, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Horne LLP, Does 1-100, Case
No. 34-2022-00320725-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.,
May 27, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
HORNE -- https://horne.com/ -- is a professional services firm
founded on a cornerstone of public accounting.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 818-265-1020
Fax: 818-265-1021
HYATT CORP: $990K Class Settlement in Crump Suit Wins Prelim. Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTINE CRUMP, Plaintiff v. HYATT CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00295-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California grants the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.
I. Background
Plaintiff Crump was employed as a Line Cook at Hyatt House in
Emeryville, California from approximately January to June 2019. The
Plaintiff contends that the Defendant had a timekeeping policy that
rounded hourly employees' time to the nearest hour, as opposed to
paying them for every minute they were working. She further alleges
that as a result, the Defendant failed to pay overtime and minimum
wage; timely pay all wages upon termination; and keep accurate
payroll records.
In July 2021, the parties participated in a full-day mediation with
mediator Paul Grossman. The parties ultimately entered into a
settlement agreement, fully executed in February 2022.
The key terms are as follows:
a. Class Definition: The Settlement Class is defined as "all
current and former non-exempt, hourly employees working for
Defendant in California at any time between Dec. 6, 2015 through
June 9, 2019."
b. Settlement Benefits: The Defendant will make a $990,000
non-reversionary payment. It will make this payment in two
tranches: The first 50% will be paid ten days after judgment has
been entered, and the remaining 50% will be paid six months later.
The parties propose that $50,000 of this gross settlement
fund be allocated to the PAGA claim as civil penalties. Of this
PAGA Payment, $37,500 will be paid to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") and $12,500 will be
distributed pro rata to class members. The gross settlement fund
also includes Court-approved attorneys' fees and costs, settlement
administration fees, the employees' share of payroll taxes, any
incentive payment to the Plaintiff as class representative, and
payments to class members. The cash payments to the class will be
based on the number of weeks each class member worked during the
relevant class period.
d. Incentive Award: The named Plaintiff may apply for an
incentive award of no more than $10,000.
e. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: The Class Counsel will file an
application for attorneys' fees not to exceed 35% of the Gross
Settlement Amount, or $346,500, and costs not to exceed $100,000.
f. Opt-Out Procedure: The deadline for a class member to
submit a request for exclusion or to object to the Settlement is 30
days after the initial mailing date of the notice. The Defendant
retains the right to withdraw from the settlement agreement if 5%
or more of the class members opt out.
II. Discussion
A. Class Certification
The plaintiff bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the
evidence that class certification is appropriate under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23. Class certification is a two-step process.
First, a plaintiff must establish that each of the four
requirements of Rule 23(a) is met: numerosity, commonality,
typicality, and adequacy of representation. Second, it must
establish that at least one of the bases for certification under
Rule 23(b) is met. Where, in the case, a plaintiff seeks to certify
a class under Rule 23(b)(3), it must show that "questions of law or
fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and that a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy."
Judge Gilliam finds that finds that all the requirements of Rule
23(a) are met:
a. Numerosity: Joinder of the thousands of estimated class
members would be impracticable.
b. Commonality: Common questions of law and fact include the
propriety of the Defendant's rounding policy.
c. Typicality: The Plaintiff's claims are both factually and
legally similar to those of the putative class because the
Defendant allegedly applied its rounding policy to Plaintiff and
all class members.
d. Adequacy of Representation: The Court is unaware of any
actual conflicts of interest in the matter and no evidence in the
record suggests that either the Plaintiff or the counsel have a
conflict with other class members. The Plaintiff's counsel has been
appointed class counsel in numerous federal and state class
actions. Judge Gilliam finds that the proposed class counsel and
the Plaintiff have prosecuted the action vigorously on behalf of
the class to date, and will continue to do so.
Judge Gilliam also finds that the predominance and superiority
requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are met. He concludes that for
purposes of settlement, common questions predominate here because
under the the Plaintiff's allegations Defendant's wage and hour
policies were uniform and violated California law. Although the
class members will need to rely upon individual evidence to some
extent to calculate their individual damages, the mere fact that
there might be differences in damage calculations is not sufficient
to defeat class certification. He further concludes that a class
action enables the most efficient use of Court and attorney
resources and reduces costs to the class members by allocating
costs among them. This forum is also appropriate, and there are no
obvious difficulties in managing the class action.
Because he finds that the Plaintiff meets the commonality,
typicality, and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a), Judge Gilliam
appoints the Plaintiff as the class representative. And, because
the counsel have investigated and litigated the case throughout its
existence and have submitted declarations detailing their expertise
in representing plaintiffs in class action suits, especially wage
and hour class actions, he appoints Parris Law Firm as the Class
Counsel.
B. Preliminary Settlement Approval
Finding that provisional class certification is appropriate, Judge
Gilliam considers whether he should preliminarily approve the
parties' class action settlement. Courts may preliminarily approve
a settlement and notice plan to the class if the proposed
settlement: (1) appears to be the product of serious, informed,
non-collusive negotiations; (2) does not grant improper
preferential treatment to class representatives or other segments
of the class; (3) falls within the range of possible approval; and
(4) has no obvious deficiencies. Courts lack the authority,
however, to "delete, modify or substitute certain provisions. The
settlement must stand or fall in its entirety."
Having weighed the relevant factors, Judge Gilliam preliminarily
finds that the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate. He finds that (i) the Settlement Agreement contains a
clear sailing arrangement; (ii) he will consider the evidence
presented at the final fairness hearing and evaluate the
reasonableness of any incentive award request; (iii) the settlement
amount, given these risks, weighs in favor of granting preliminary
approval; and (iv) there are no obvious deficiencies. For these
reasons, Judge Gilliam grants preliminary approval. He directs the
parties to include both a joint proposed order and a joint proposed
judgment when submitting their motion for final approval.
C. Class Notice Plan
The parties have agreed that a third-party settlement administrator
will send class notice via first-class U.S. mail to each class
member at their last known address, as provided by the Defendant
and updated by the administrator as appropriate.Any letters
returned as undeliverable will be sent to any updated address
provided with the returned mail.If no forwarding address is
provided, the settlement administrator will attempt to determine
the correct address using the National Change of Address Database.
Judge Gilliam finds that the proposed notice process is "reasonably
calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise all class
members of the proposed settlement." As to the substance of the
notice, the parties have attached a copy of their proposed class
notice to the Settlement Agreement.
The notice also informs class members that the Class Counsel will
file a motion with the Court for attorneys' fees, as well as
reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses advanced by the
Class Counsel. the It also provides that Plaintiff may request up
to $10,000 for her services as Class Representative.
To enable class members to review the motion for attorneys' fees
and the motion for incentive award, the Class Counsel will include
language in the settlement notice: (1) indicating the deadline for
filing the attorneys' fees motion and request for the Plaintiff's
incentive award; (2) specifically stating the deadline for any
class member objections to these motions; and (3) informing the
class members how to access the motion and supporting materials.
Judge Gilliam therefore finds that with these changes, the content
of the proposed notice provides sufficient information about the
case and thus conforms with due process requirements.
III. Conclusion
Judge Gilliam grants the motion for preliminary approval. The
parties are directed to meet and confer and stipulate to a schedule
of dates for each event listed below, which will be submitted to
the Court within seven days of the date of the Order:
a. Deadline for Settlement Administrator to mail notice to all
putative Class Members
b. Filing deadline for attorneys' fees and costs motion
c. Filing deadline for incentive payment motion
d. Deadline for the Class Members to opt-out or object to
settlement and/or application for attorneys' fees and costs and
incentive payment, at least 45 days after the filing of the motion
for attorneys' fees and incentive payments
e. Filing deadline for final approval motion
f. Final fairness hearing and hearing on motions
The parties are further directed to implement the proposed class
notice plan with the edits identified.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 17, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4t7xwyn5 from Leagle.com.
IONQ INC: Rosen Law Reminds of August 1 Deadline
------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of IonQ, Inc. (NYSE: IONQ) between
March 30, 2021 and May 2, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important August 1, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased IonQ securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the IonQ class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6703 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 1, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class
action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was
Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) IonQ had not yet developed a
32-qubit quantum computer; (2) IonQ's 11-qubit quantum computer
suffered from significant error rates, rendering it useless; (3)
IonQ's quantum computer is not sufficiently reliable, so it is not
accessible despite being available through major cloud providers;
(4) a significant portion of IonQ's revenue was derived from
improper round-tripping transactions with related parties; and (5)
as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about
IonQ's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
To join the IonQ class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6703 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.[GN]
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth Health Crisis in Wis., Lake Holcombe Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAKE HOLCOMBE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03486 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Wisconsin Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Lake Holcombe School District is a public school district with its
administrative offices located in Holcombe, Wisconsin.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
JUUL LABS: Community Sues Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 94, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03507 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Illinois Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Community High School District 94 is a public school district with
its administrative offices located in West Chicago, Illinois.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Benton School Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BENTON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03501 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Benton Community School Corporation is a public school district
with its administrative offices located on Grant Avenue in Fowler,
Indiana.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
JUUL LABS: Faces East Allen Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
EAST ALLEN COUNTY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03503 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
East Allen County Schools is a public school district with its
administrative offices located in New Haven, Indiana.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
JUUL LABS: Faces McDowell Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
--------------------------------------------------------------
MCDOWELL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, MCDOWELL COUNTY, STATE OF WEST
VIRGINIA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES;
ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA
GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-03496 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of
the West Virginia Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
McDowell County School Board is a school district with its
administrative offices located at 155 Park Street, Pineville, West
Virginia.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
Davis S. Vaughn, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq.
THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC
716 Lee St. E.
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 344-9322
E-mail: Rusty@RustyWebb.com
JUUL LABS: Faces Webster County Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WEBSTER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, WEBSTER COUNTY, STATE OF WEST
VIRGINIA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES;
ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA
GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-03492 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of
the West Virginia Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Webster County Board of Education is a school district with its
administrative offices located at 315 South Main Street, Webster
Springs, West Virginia.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
Davis S. Vaughn, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq.
THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC
716 Lee St. E.
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 344-9322
E-mail: Rusty@RustyWebb.com
JUUL LABS: Lewis County Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction
------------------------------------------------------------
LEWIS COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, LEWIS COUNTY, STATE OF WEST
VIRGINIA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES;
ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA
GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-03499 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of
the West Virginia Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Lewis County Board of Education is a public school district with
its administrative offices located at 239 Court Avenue, Weston,
West Virginia.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
Davis S. Vaughn, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq.
THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC
716 Lee St. E.
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 344-9322
E-mail: Rusty@RustyWebb.com
JUUL LABS: Luck School Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------
LUCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-03488 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Wisconsin Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Luck School District is a public school district with its
administrative offices located in Luck, Wisconsin.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Stanley-Boyd Area Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STANLEY-BOYD AREA SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03498-WHO (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Wisconsin Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Stanley-Boyd Area Schools is a public school district with its
administrative offices are located in Stanley, Wisconsin.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
JUUL LABS: Pepin Area Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign in Wis.
------------------------------------------------------------------
PEPIN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03489 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Wisconsin Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Pepin Area School District is a public school district with its
administrative offices located in Pepin, Wisconsin.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
JUUL LABS: Plum City School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PLUM CITY, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03491 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Wisconsin Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
School District of Plum City is a public school district with its
administrative offices are located in Plum City, Wisconsin.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
JUUL LABS: Pocahontas County Suit Claims Youth Health Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------
POCAHONTAS COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, POCAHONTAS COUNTY, STATE OF
WEST VIRGINIA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-03494 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the West Virginia Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Pocahontas County Board of Education is a school district with its
administrative offices located at 404 Old Buckeye Road, Buckeye,
West Virginia.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
Davis S. Vaughn, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq.
THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC
716 Lee St. E.
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 344-9322
E-mail: Rusty@RustyWebb.com
JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette to Youth, Southwest Allen Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTHWEST ALLEN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03502 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Southwest Allen County School District is a public school district
with its administrative offices are located in Fort Wayne,
Indiana.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
JUUL LABS: Spooner Area Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign
----------------------------------------------------------------
SPOONER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03493-WHO (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Wisconsin Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Spooner Area School District is a public school district with its
administrative offices are located in Spooner, Wisconsin.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Lincoln County Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LINCOLN COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, LINCOLN COUNTY, STATE OF WEST
VIRGINIA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES;
ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA
GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-03497-WHO (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the West Virginia Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Lincoln County School Board is a school district with its
administrative offices located at 10 Maryland Avenue, Hamlin, West
Virginia.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
Davis S. Vaughn, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq.
THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC
716 Lee St. E.
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 344-9322
E-mail: Rusty@RustyWebb.com
KNIX WEAR: Seeks Sanctions for Lawyers Behind Consumers' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Solarina Ho at CTVNews.ca reports that Canadian undergarment maker
Knix Wear Inc. has filed a motion for sanctions against the lawyers
representing the plaintiffs in a class-action complaint, saying
they did not conduct an independent investigation before filing a
lawsuit in April alleging the company's products contain harmful
chemicals.
Knix has also filed a motion to have the class-action complaint
dismissed.
A class action complaint against the undergarment brand was filed
in April, alleging the company's menstrual underwear are "unfit for
their intended use" because they contain a harmful class of
chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS),
sometimes nicknamed "forever chemicals", despite being advertised
as free of the substances, according to an amended court document
filed on April 7, 2022.
In new court documents filed on June 11, 2022 and obtained by
CTVNews.ca, Knix argued that the plaintiffs, Gemma Rivera and
Marisa Franz, and their lawyers, "have no idea whether any Knix
product actually contains fluorine or not, let alone the specific
type of fluorine (organic fluorine) that can potentially indicate
the presence of PFAS. Indeed, they conducted no independent
investigation whatsoever to even attempt to confirm the truth of
that assertion."
Knix said the allegations against the company's products are
tenuous and are based on unsubstantiated claims made in a "mom
blog". It is asking for the complaint to be entirely dismissed with
prejudice, or stricken and that the company be awarded the cost of
defense.
The original lawsuit alleged that Knix products contain unsafe
PFAS, a family of chemicals used since the 1950s across a wide
variety of industries and found in numerous everyday products. That
lawsuit was subsequently amended to say that Knix's menstrual
underwear contain "heightened levels of fluorine which is an
indicator" of unsafe PFAS.
Knix said in a statement to CTVNews.ca that it takes product safety
seriously, has always been transparent about its testing, and that
it strongly disputed the allegations made in the California
lawsuit.
"This is an unfair attack on our brand integrity. Any suggestion
that our products are somehow unsafe is wrong which is why we have
filed both a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and a Rule 11
Sanctions Motion against the lawyers who filed it," the company
stated.
"Rule 11 motions are rarely filed in US litigation. However, in
this situation, because the court filing is so factually baseless,
we are asking the Court to not only dismiss the case but to also
sanction the law firm that filed it . . . [we] sincerely apologize
to our customers for any fear or confusion that this is causing."
The plaintiff's lawyers, Sean Litteral and Rachel Miller, with the
law firm Bursor & Fisher, did not respond to a request for comment
regarding Knix's motions.
"FRIVOLOUS" CLAIMS
Knix says it has conducted extensive testing by third-party
laboratories, but the plaintiffs stated in its lawsuit that these
claims are inaccurate or misleading.
In its sanctions motion, which also cited previous cases involving
"frivolous suits", the company said the lawsuit is based on claims
made in a blog post published by "Mamavation" and that they
conducted no independent investigation of their own.
"Rule 11 exists to prevent this very type of 'file first and ask
questions later' pleading," the company stated in its sanctions
motion.
"The Rule requires that the filing attorney personally conduct a
reasonable investigation; it does not allow him to simply
regurgitate unsupported and defamatory accusations from internet
bloggers who are not subject to Court rules."
Knix says that Mamavation did not provide any details regarding its
claim, including the name of the lab or the test results, and that
no details were produced on how the testing was conducted,
including testing conditions, procedures and how the samples were
collected and prepared.
"Those factors are important, because fluorine is ubiquitous in the
environment and Mamavation itself acknowledges that fluorine
detection can result from contamination before or during the
testing process," the sanctions motion stated.
The motion also noted that the blog also did not specify whether
the products tested positive for organic or inorganic fluorine. The
latter is not a potential indicator for PFAS and can include
compounds like fluoride salts and minerals.
Knix noted that the plaintiff's lawyers had previously acknowledged
these distinctions in other lawsuits filed against other companies.
They also noted that the lawyers have filed "at least half a dozen
PFAS lawsuits in the last two months, all of which appear to rely
entirely on third-party testing reported in articles, blog posts or
litigation documents filed by other lawyers."
Knix stated in its filings that it continues to conduct routine
PFAS and organic fluorine testing on its products and requires its
suppliers to do the same, with the testing process and sample
results posted on the company's website.
In the motion, the company described Mamavation as "an affiliate
'mom blogger' with no scientific background who receives financial
compensation from various apparel brands, including Knix
competitors, for directing its readers to those competitors'
websites."
The hearing is currently set for November 10, 2022 in California.
WHAT ARE "FOREVER CHEMICALS"?
There are thousands of PFAS according to the U.S. government's
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and studies
have suggested that the substances are found in the blood of 97 per
cent of Americans. They were previously known as
perfluorochemicals, or PFCs.
They can be found in a number of everyday products from make-up,
non-stick cookware and stain-repelling fabric to pizza boxes and
fast-food packaging, as well as in more specialized industries from
aerospace to firefighting. Low levels of the PFAS have been be
found in food including honey, eggs, and vegetables, and even
beef.
Because the chemicals do not break down or dissolve easily, there
have been ongoing concerns that these chemicals could reach levels
that are harmful to both humans and the environment. Some research
suggests that at very high levels, certain PFAS can cause health
problems including higher chances of certain types of cancer,
higher cholesterol level and changes within the immune system.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a warning that two
types of PFAS compounds found in drinking water posed a greater
health risk than previously thought, even at undetectably low
levels.[GN]
LESLIES POOLMART: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leslies Poolmart,
Inc. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Leslies Poolmart, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05000-AT (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Leslie's, Inc. -- https://lesliespool.com/ -- operating as Leslie's
Swimming Pool Supplies, is the largest retailer of swimming pool
supplies and related products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Cortinas Sues Over Improper Withholdings of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Cortinas, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY ("LMPIC"),
Case No. 5:22-cv-00544-OLG (W.D. Tex., May 26, 2022), is brought
arising out of a dispute between a policyholder and property
insurer and seeking to remedy the improper withholdings of future
labor from the Plaintiff and putative class members' actual cash
value (ACV) payments.
The seminal legal dispute before the Court is whether future labor,
yet to be incurred, may be "depreciated" by LMPIC when LMPIC
calculates its actual cash value payment obligations for structural
property losses. This lawsuit does not contest that labor used to
make a building product (such as a shingle or electrical outlet) or
labor used to construct a building (such as a roofer or
electrician) become "embedded" within the building product or home
and can be depreciated as part of an ACV calculation.
Future labor is at issue because, pursuant to LMPIC's property
insurance policy forms at issue, ACV payments are to be made
prospectively, that is, prior to the policyholder undertaking
repairs to a damaged structure. In contrast to ACV coverage,
replacement cost value coverage payments ("RCV") are made
retrospectively, after repairs have been completed. Property
insurers within the Liberty Mutual Group, including LMPIC, have
faced repeated lawsuits around the country concerning its practice
of depreciating future labor from ACV payments.
Most property insurers in Texas do not withhold future labor under
the auspice of "depreciation" when making ACV payments for
structural loss claims. However, some property insurers in Texas do
withhold future labor as depreciation when making ACV payments for
structural loss claims but only pursuant to the terms of their
insurance policies, which expressly permit future labor to be
withheld, i.e., a form that expressly uses the terms "labor" and
"depreciate" or "depreciation" and addressing the issue within the
text of the policy or endorsement. Others, such as LMPIC, withhold
future labor as depreciation even under policies that do not
contain such provisions. The LMPIC policies at issue did not
include any provision or language that allow it to withhold labor
as depreciation when making ACV payments for structural loss
claims, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Cortinas owned the dwelling and other structures
located at 3310 Crows Ldg., San Antonio, Texas.
LMPIC is authorized to sell property insurance policies in the
State of Texas, including within this judicial district.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun W. Hodge, Esq.
THE HODGE LAW FIRM, PLLC
The Historic Runge House
1301 Market Street
Galveston, TX 77550
Phone: (409) 762-5000
Facsimile: (409) 763-2300
Email: shodge@hodgefirm.com
LITIGATION PRACTICE: Scheduling Order Entered in Beech Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Beech v. Litigation
Practice Group, PC,Case No. 1:22-cv-00057 (S.D. Miss.), the Hon.
Judge Robert H. Walker entered an scheduling order as follows:
-- The parties will conduct class Dec. 1, 2022
certification-related discovery
which shall end:
-- The deadline for filing any Jan. 17, 2023
motion to conditionally certify
collective action is:
The nature of suit states other statutes -- other statutory
actions.
LPG offers debt resolution services.[CC]
MACK DERMATOLOGY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mack Dermatology,
P.C. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Mack Dermatology, P.C., Case No.
1:22-cv-05009 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mack Dermatology doing business as Glamderm --
https://glamderm.com/ -- is a dermatologist in New York, City
offering personalized treatment & management plans for skin, hair,
and nail disorders.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
MACY'S CREDIT: Caldera Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Macy's Credit and
Customer Services, Inc. The case is styled as Lucina Caldera,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Macy's Credit and Customer Services, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-04116
(C.D. Cal., June 15, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Macy's -- https://www.macys.com/p/credit-service/benefits/ -- is an
American chain of high-end department stores founded in 1858 by
Rowland Hussey Macy.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
MAZDA MOTORS: New York District Court Issues Summons in Bey Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAMERLANE T. BEY III, Plaintiff v. MAZDA MOTORS OF
AMERICA, INC.; DENSO CORP.; DENSO INT'L AMERICA, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 22-CV-3328 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge J. Paul Oetken of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an
order directing the Clerk of Court to issue a summons as to the
Defendants.
The Plaintiff is directed to serve the summons and complaint on the
Defendant within 90 days of the issuance of the summons. If within
those 90 days, the Plaintiff has not either served the Defendants
or requested an extension of time to do so, the Court may dismiss
the claims against the Defendants under Rules 4 and 41 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and cannot act on behalf of
others, the Court does not treat the matter as a potential class
action.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 15, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8s27n8 from Leagle.com.
META PLATFORMS: Advertisers Can Pursue Class Action Over Ad Rates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a U.S. judge ruled that a lawsuit accusing
Meta Platforms Inc's (FB.O) Facebook of deceiving advertisers about
its "potential reach" tool can proceed as a class action.
The decision by U.S. District Judge James Donato in San Francisco
allows potentially millions of individuals and businesses that paid
for ads on Facebook and its photo-sharing app Instagram since Aug.
15, 2014 to sue as a group.
Meta did not immediately respond to a request for a comment.
The lawsuit began in 2018, as DZ Reserve and other advertisers
accused Facebook of inflating its advertising reach, by increasing
the number of potential viewers by as much as 400%, and charging
artificially high premiums for ad placements.
They also said senior Facebook executives knew for years that the
company's "potential reach" metric was inflated by duplicate and
fake accounts, yet did nothing about it and took steps to cover it
up.
After calling out Meta's "blunderbuss" objections to class
certification, Donato rejected its contention that the class was
too diverse, including "large sophisticated corporations" as well
as individuals and small businesses, and that it would be too hard
to calculate damages.
Donato also said it made sense to let individual plaintiffs sue as
a group, given that "no reasonable person" would sue Meta
individually to recover at most a $32 price premium.
The judge is expected later this year to consider Meta's bid to
dismiss the lawsuit. [GN]
NEMAK USA: Harrington Seeks OT for Hourly-Paid Employees Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HOPE HARRINGTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NEMAK USA INC., Case No. 22-cv-693 (E.D. Wisc., June
15, 2022) is a collective and class action brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and and Wisconsin's Wage Payment
and Collection Laws for purposes of obtaining relief under the FLSA
and WWPCL for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon
wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory
and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court
may deem appropriate.
The Defendant allegedly operated an unlawful compensation system
that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other
current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours
worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime
rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, by shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from
the Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees'
weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post-shift hours worked and/or
work performed, to the detriment of the employees and to the
benefit of Defendant, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL, says the
suit.
The similarly situated employees include:
"All hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed by the
Defendant
within the three years immediately preceding the filing of
this Complaint who have not been compensated for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek at the proper,
correct, and/or lawful overtime rate of pay."
Nemak specializes in the production of high complex aluminum
components.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
ONE DAY ROOFING: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against One Day Roofing, LLC.
The case is styled as Stewart Abramson, individually and on behalf
of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. One
Day Roofing, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00883-LPL (W.D. Pa., June 15,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
One Day Roofing -- https://www.onedayroofing.com/ -- is a full
exterior remodeling company that's main focus is to provide a top
notch process from start to finish for the consumer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq.
P.O. Box 244
Bellefonte, PA 16823
Phone: (814) 777-5080
Email: jjackson@bower-law.com
PACIFIC BELL: Denial of Class Certification in Meza Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVE MEZA, Plaintiff and Appellant v. PACIFIC BELL
TELEPHONE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B317119 (Cal.
App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Second District,
Division Three, issued an order:
a. dismissing the appeal from the order disposing of Meza's
claim under Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a)(6);
b. reversing the order denying class certification with
directions to the trial court to consider whether Meza is
an adequate and typical class representative; and
c. affirming the orders granting summary adjudication of
Meza's section 226, subdivision (a)(9) and the PAGA claims.
I. Introduction
Mr. Meza filed the consolidated class action lawsuit against his
former employer, Pacific Bell. Meza alleged Pacific Bell violated
California law by failing to provide lawful meal and rest periods
and failing to provide lawful itemized wage statements among other
Labor Code violations.
Mr. Meza appeals four trial court orders: (1) an order denying
class certification to five meal and rest period classes (the class
certification order); (2) an order granting summary adjudication of
Meza's claim relating to wage statements under section 226,
subdivision (a)(9) (the wage statement order); (3) an order
striking Meza's claim under section 226, subdivision (a)(6) (the
order to strike); and (4) an order granting summary adjudication of
Meza's claim under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of
2004 (PAGA) (Section 2698 et seq.) (the PAGA order).
II. Background
Pacific Bell is a telecommunications corporation providing voice,
video, data, internet and professional services to businesses,
consumers, and government agencies. It has branches around the
world, including in California. Pacific Bell hired Meza in January
2014 as a premises technician. Meza's duties included installing
and repairing Pacific Bell's products and services including UVerse
TV, telephones, and internet, transporting equipment and products
to and from client locations, conducting pretrip and posttrip
inspections of the company van, cleaning and maintaining the
company van's interior, and keeping the company van stocked. Though
not alleged in the complaint, Pacific Bell employed Meza until
October 2015.
In his operative second amended complaint, Meza alleged many Labor
Code violations. Meza alleged that Pacific Bell failed to
accurately document hours worked, failed to pay overtime wages,
failed to provide legally required meal, failed to furnish accurate
and complete wage statements, and failed to pay costs for the
upkeep of uniforms.
Based on the allegations of Labor Code violations, Meza asserted a
claim for unlawful business practices under Business and
Professions Code section 17200 and a claim under PAGA. Meza also
asserted a claim for wrongful termination. Meza sought compensatory
and punitive damages, restitution, and penalties.
In December 2017, Meza moved to certify six statewide classes of
premises technicians, five of which pertained to Meza's meal and
rest period claims, and one of which pertained to his wage
statement claim under section 226, subdivision (a)(9). Pacific Bell
opposed certification of the meal and rest period classes, arguing
that its meal and rest period policies were facially compliant.
Pacific Bell further argued that the 2011 guidelines on which Meza
relied were not in effect during his employment, and that Meza
testified that he had no recollection of receiving the operative
guidelines. It also argued that Meza was an inadequate class
representative because he "repeatedly lied in his deposition" and
because of the circumstances of his discharge.
The trial court denied Meza's class certification motion for the
meal and rest period classes, stating, "While the policies are
undisputed," "it appears that the actual management practices of
Pacific Bell's supervisors result in a diverse application of the
company's Premises Technician Guidelines" that renders the claims
"unsuitable for class action treatment." Because it did not certify
these proposed classes, the trial court did not address the
argument that Meza was an inadequate class representative. The
trial court certified a class to pursue Meza's wage statement claim
under section 226, subdivision (a)(9).
In 2018, Meza appealed the class certification order. The Fifth
Appellate District dismissed this appeal in July 2020. It found
that the order was not yet appealable under the death knell
doctrine.
In June 2018, Meza and Pacific Bell filed cross-motions for summary
adjudication of the sole class claim that had been certified:
Meza's wage statement claim under section 226, subdivision (a)(9).
The trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of Pacific
Bell, ruling that the wage statements complied with the law. With
this ruling, no further class claims remained in the case.
In April 2019, Meza filed his third amended complaint. Meza added a
claim under section 226, subdivision (a)(6) alleging that Pacific
Bell's wage statements failed to accurately show the inclusive
dates of the pay period. Pacific Bell filed a motion to strike
these portions of the third amended complaint for failure to state
a claim because Pacific Bell's pay statements listed the first and
last day of the regular pay period. The court granted the motion to
strike without leave to amend.
In February 2020, Pacific Bell moved for summary adjudication of
Meza's PAGA claim, arguing that a final, approved settlement in a
prior action, Hudson v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (Super. Ct.
Sacramento County, 2016, No. 34-2016-00202203) (Hudson), barred
Meza from pursuing his claim under the doctrines of res judicata
and settlement and release. The Hudson action had alleged failure
to pay all minimum and overtime wages (Sections 510, 1194, 1197);
failure to provide compliant meal periods (Sections 226.7, 512);
failure to provide rest periods (Section 226.7); failure to provide
accurate wage statements (Section 226); failure to pay wages owed
at termination (Sections 201, 202, 203); unfair business practices
(Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200 et seq.); and derivative
penalties under PAGA (Section 2698 et seq.). The court in Hudson
granted final approval of a settlement and entered judgment.
On July 24, 2020, the trial court granted Pacific Bell's summary
adjudication motion. It agreed that Meza's PAGA claims were barred
under the theory of res judicata.
On July 28, 2020, Meza appealed to the Fifth Appellate District. On
Dec. 20, 2021, the state Supreme Court transferred the matter to
the Second Appellate District.
III. Discussion
A. Except for the order to strike, the trial court orders are
appealable
The right to appeal in California is generally governed by the 'one
final judgment' rule, under which most interlocutory orders are not
appealable." All four orders that Meza challenges are interlocutory
orders. Because the existence of an appealable order is a
jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal, the Court of Appeals
firsts considers whether the orders are appealable. It concludes
that Meza's appeal of the order to strike must be dismissed because
Meza did not include it in his notice of appeal. It agrees that the
other orders are appealable under the death knell doctrine, which
allows immediate appeals of certain interlocutory orders that
resolve all representative claims but leave individual claims
intact.
B. The trial court erred in denying certification based on
inconsistent applications of Pacific Bell policies
Mr. Meza contends that the district court abused its discretion in
denying class certification. Specifically, Meza contends that the
legality of the Pacific Bell company guidelines, communicated to
Pacific Bell premises technicians in writing, is a common issue
that should be resolved as to all class members.
The Court of Appeals agrees. On the merits, it concludes that the
trial court erred in refusing to certify the meal and rest period
classes based on its conclusion that common issues do not
predominate. On remand, however, the trial court must consider
whether Meza is an adequate class representative, an issue it did
not reach in its previous ruling.
C. The trial court correctly granted summary adjudication as to
Meza's wage statement claim
Section 226, subdivision (a)(9) provides that an employee wage
statement must include "all applicable hourly rates in effect
during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked
at each hourly rate by the employee." Meza contends Pacific Bell
violated this statute by failing to include the "rate" and "hours"
attributable to Pacific Bell's overtime true-up payments. Pacific
Bell, supported by amici curiae, argues that its wage statement
complies with the statute and that Meza's reading of the statute
would expose employers to serious compliance burdens,
disincentivize bonus pay, and result in confusing wage statements.
The Court of Appeals finds no error in the trial court's order
granting summary adjudication of Meza's claim on the basis that
Pacific Bell's wage statements comply with the statutory
requirements. It affirms the wage statement order and the PAGA
order. In the published portion of the opinion, the Court of
Appeals explains that the trial court correctly granted summary
adjudication of Meza's wage statement claim because Pacific Bell's
wage statements do not violate the Labor Code.
D. The trial court correctly granted summary adjudication of Meza's
PAGA claim
Mr. Meza contends that the trial court improperly granted Pacific
Bell's motion for summary adjudication of the PAGA claim. Meza
argues that claim preclusion does not apply because the Hudson
complaint did not allege the same predicate facts and violations of
law as Meza alleged in this action. The parties do not dispute the
essential facts, including the Hudson judgment and written
release.
As previously noted, the Court of Appeals reviews the order on
summary judgment de novo. It holds that the trial court correctly
granted summary adjudication of the PAGA claim because it was
barred by claim preclusion in light of the settlement and dismissal
of a previous PAGA lawsuit.
IV. Disposition
The appeal from the order disposing of Meza's Labor Code section
226, subdivision (a)(6) claim is dismissed. The order denying class
certification is reversed with directions to the trial court to
consider whether Meza is an adequate and typical class
representative. The orders granting summary adjudication of Meza's
section 226, subdivision (a)(9) and the PAGA claims are affirmed.
The parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 17, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mrys5bzc from Leagle.com.
The Dion-Kindem Law Firm, Peter R. Dion-Kindem
--peter@dion-kindemlaw.com; The Blanchard Law Group and Lonnie C.
Blanchard -- lonnieblanchard@gmail.com -- for the Plaintiff and
Appellant.
Paul Hastings, Raymond Bertrand -- raymondbertrand@paulhastings.com
-- James de Haan -- jamesdehaan@paulhastings.com; Mayor Brown,
Shaeff Jaffe and Donald M. Falk -- dfalk@schaerr-jaffe.com -- for
the Defendant and Respondent.
O'Melveny & Myers, Adam Karr -- akarr@omm.com -- and Heather Welles
-- hwelles@omm.com -- for Chamber of Commerce of the United States
of America and California Chamber of Commerce as Amici Curiae on
behalf of the Defendant and Respondent.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Max C. Fischer --
max.fischer@morganlewis.com -- and Aimee Mackay --
aimee.mackay@morganlewis.com -- for California Employment Law
Council and Employers Group as Amici Curiae on behalf of the
Defendant and Respondent.
PAPARAZZI LLC: Jewelry Products Aren't Lead, Nickel Free, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HeatherGilbert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Paparazzi, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-11339-SFC-CI (E.D.
Mich., June 16, 2022) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the
Plaintiff and a class of persons who purchased Paparazzi's
necklaces, earrings, bracelets, and other accessories, which
Plaintiff's testing has revealed contain lead and nickel, in
contradiction to Paparazzi's express claims that its Products were
lead and nickel free.
According to the complaint, a central tenet of Paparazzi's
marketing and sales strategy during the relevant time period was to
prominently promote its Products as lead and nickel free.
Paparazzi's marketing appeals were conspicuously saturated with
such claims. In stark contrast to Paparazzi's pervasive marketing
of its Products as lead and nickel free, the Plaintiff's
independent testing, as well as test results obtained from other
customers, has revealed that Paparazzi's Products do in fact
contain significant amounts of lead and nickel, says the suit.
Consumers lack the ability to ascertain the true contents of
Paparazzi's Products prior to purchase. Accordingly, reasonable
consumers must and do rely on Paparazzi to accurately and honestly
disclose the materials in its Products. This is especially true for
materials such as lead and nickel. Paparazzi made its "lead and
nickel free" claims a central part of its marketing message to
consumers in order to misleadingly create the impression that its
Products are safer and of a higher level of quality than they are
in reality, added the suit.
As a direct result of Paparazzi's pervasive marketing campaign,
customers reasonably relied and continue to rely on Paparazzi's
widespread express false statements, misleading representations and
material omissions and expected that its Products would be free of
lead and nickel and, therefore, they mistakenly believed they would
not be exposed to the adverse effects associated with these
materials. As a result of Defendant Paparazzi's misconduct, false
statements, misrepresentations and material omissions, the
Plaintiff and proposed Class Members have suffered injury in fact,
including economic damages, the suit alleges.
Defendant Paparazzi designs, formulates, manufactures, markets,
advertises, distributes, and sells women's and men's Products and,
until about February 2022, children's Products.
Paparazzi's business model is what is widely known as a multi-level
marketing business, in which Paparazzi recruits salespersons to
market and sell its Products to consumers for a commission.
Paparazzi also claims its salespersons can earn large commissions
and bonuses for recruiting other individuals to be Paparazzi
salespersons.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
Patrick Wallace, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
6905 Telegraph Road, Ste. 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
pwallace@milberg.com
- and -
Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq.
MAGINNIS HOWARD
7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone: (919) 526-0450
Facsimile: (919) 882-8763
E-mail: kgwaltney@maginnishoward.com
PENNSYLVANIA: Lawsuit Seeks $45-M in Refunds Over Handling Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals, bars and restaurants statewide are a step closer to
receiving refunds potentially worth tens of millions of dollars on
orders of alcohol not carried at Fine Wine & Good Spirits stores,
but which were required to be picked up there.
The Commonwealth Court recently overruled the Pennsylvania Liquor
Control Board's objections to a class action suit that seeks the
return of an estimated $25 million to $45 million the PLCB
collected since 2017 through its $1.75-per-bottle handling fee on
such "special orders."
The Log Cabin restaurant in Warwick Township is the lead plaintiff
in the suit, which also asks for the PLCB to pay back "pick up
expenses" incurred by restaurants, specialty stores and individual
customers that were forced to drive to a store because the PLCB
didn't allow direct shipments to a home or business.
"We just want to have the ability to get stuff delivered so we
don't have to drive somewhere to pick everything up," said Kirk
Liddell, owner of The Log Cabin.
A state law had directed PLCB to end its handling fees for special
orders and allow direct shipping by June 2017. But the agency
didn't make any change until earlier this month when it notified
wine and liquor producers that "new in 2022, suppliers wishing to
deliver (special orders) directly to licensees may do so."
Those simple words from the PLCB were the culmination of a
2-year-old legal dispute that has earned the agency stern rebukes
from a variety of judges and left it in the crosshairs of the
class-action suit that could force it to pay back the tens of
millions of dollars in fees it collected as an unwanted middleman.
"When a state or state agency takes something that doesn't belong
to it, it can't keep it," said John G. Papianou, a partner at
Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP in Philadelphia, and the
lead attorney in the case.
'Dilatory and Obdurate'
The PLCB has suffered a series of defeats in the matter, with the
latest being a May 27 Commonwealth Court ruling in a separate case
that found the agency liable for more than $100,000 in damages and
more than $300,000 in legal fees.
That ruling, which was issued on the same day as the recent Log
Cabin order, was made in a case initially filed by two wine
merchants in April 2020 after Gov. Tom Wolf's closure of state
stores and licensee service centers made it impossible for them to
sell products in the state.
The PLCB had claimed it was not liable for damages because it
enjoys sovereign immunity, meaning it can't be sued without its
consent. But the Commonwealth Court's 3-2 ruling firmly rejected
that argument.
"This Court, having determined that the PLCB had a clear and
unambiguous statutory duty to implement a procedure to process
direct shipment (special orders) by June 1, 2017, . . . 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 (special orders) and continuing to assess handling fees is
dilatory and obdurate," the May 27 ruling said.
Merriam-Webster defines dilatory as "tending or intended to cause
delay" and obdurate as "stubbornly persistent in wrongdoing."
On June 3, the agency published its eight-page "Special Order
Program Guide for Suppliers," which included the new section on
"Direct Delivery of (special orders) to Licensees."
A spokesman for the PLCB said the agency is "considering its next
steps."
Counting The Costs
Barring an appeal to the state Supreme Court, the Log Cabin-led
class-action lawsuit will proceed with a discovery phase Papianou
expects will reveal exactly how much the PLCB has collected in
handling fees between June 2017 and now.
Based on the agency's published reports of sales of special orders,
Papianou estimates an amount between $25 million and $45 million.
An award in a class-action lawsuit could increase by "millions" if
there is allowance made for travel and employee costs related to
making pickups, he said.
Determining exactly how much PLCB's policy cost The Log Cabin would
be difficult since it would be hard to put an exact dollar figure
on the expense of sending an employee on the 40-minute round trip
to the PLCB's licensee service center near Lancaster.
"Our suit is to say, 'Hey, can we recover some of these fees we had
to incur during this whole long wait to get the system up and
running?'" Liddell said.
While the PLCB has now given the go-ahead for direct shipments,
Liddell says he is still waiting to hear from suppliers about how
those will work, and if the suppliers will charge their own fees.
He suspects they will have fees but doubts they will be as hefty as
PLCB's $1.75-per-bottle levy.
Although the case bears his restaurant's name, Liddell says he
doesn't actually have much to do with how the class-action suit
proceeds. The lawyers have asked him for insight into how the
PLCB's system works, but he isn't incurring legal fees, and would
realize the same payment as any other restaurant if the suit
succeeds. In the unlikely event that the case goes to trial, he
would have to testify.
"As the lead plaintiff, you're really not in control of the
lawsuit, per se, because it is a representative class and the
lawyers represent the class," said Liddell, who earned a law degree
at the University of Chicago. "If the Cabin decided it didn't want
to be part of the lawsuit, there would be someone else. There's no
great advantage to be the lead. I just agreed to it." [GN]
PETLAND INC: Covino Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
FLAVIA COVINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PETLAND, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-21852 (S.D. Fla., June
16, 2022) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephonic sales calls
to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, to promote its goods and services,
Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging, including to
individuals who have registered their telephone numbers on the
National Do-Not-Call Registry, and to those who have not provided
Defendant with their prior express written consent as required by
the FTSA.
The Defendant's telephonic sales calls have caused the Plaintiff
and the Class members , including violations of their statutory
rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of
their privacy, says the suit.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory
damages on behalf of himself and the Class members, as defined
below, and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant.
The Plaintiff was the regular user of a cellular telephone number
that received Defendant's telephonic sales calls.
Specifically, the Defendant initiated and directed the transmission
of unsolicited advertisement or telemarketing text messages to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number to sell goods, services or
products in Florida. Plaintiff's telephone number has an area code
that specifically coincides with locations in Florida, and
Plaintiff received such messages while residing in and physically
present in Florida, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of
herself individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.
The Classes that Plaintiff seeks to represent are defined as:
-- DNC Class:
"All persons in the United States who from four years
prior to the filing of this action through the date of class
certification (1) were sent more than one text message call
within any 12-month period; (2) where the person's telephone
number that had been listed on the National Do Not Call
Registry for at least thirty days; (3) regarding Defendant's
property, goods, and/or services; (4) who did not purchase or
transact business with Defendant during the eighteen months
immediately preceding the date of the first message; and (5)
who did not contact Defendant during the three months
immediately preceding the date of the first message with an
inquiry about a product, good, or service offered by
Defendant;"
-- FTSA Class:
"All persons in Florida who, (1) were sent a telephonic sales
call regarding Defendant's property, goods, and/or services,
(2) using the same equipment or type of equipment utilized to
call the Plaintiff;"
-- Seller Identification Class:
"All persons within the United States who, within the four
years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date
of class certification, (1) were sent two or more text
messages within any 12-month period, (2) regarding Defendant's
property, goods, and/or services, (3) that did not disclose
the name of the individual caller, the name of the person or
entity on whose behalf the call is being made, or a telephone
number or address at which the person or entity may be
contacted."
Petland is a privately owned operator and franchisor of pet stores
based in Chillicothe, Ohio.[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
PILGRIM AUTO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Delahaye Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAMES DELAHAYE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PILGRIM AUTO, LLC, and MARTIN YOUNCE, Case No.
5:22-cv-11341 (E.D. Mich., June 16, 2022) seeks a declaratory
judgment, monetary and liquidated damages, prejudgment interest,
and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs as a result of
Defendants' policy and practice of failing to pay proper wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan Workforce
Opportunity Wage Act.
The Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours in a week for
Defendants. Other Mechanics also regularly or occasionally worked
over 40 hours in a week during their employment with the
Defendants.
The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff and other Mechanics 1.5x
their regular hourly rate for hours worked over 40 each week. The
Plaintiff and other Mechanics are entitled to 1.5x their regular
hourly rate for hours worked over 40 each week, says the suit.
The Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and other
Mechanics were working hours for which they were not paid an
overtime premium. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff for all
hours worked, the suit added.
Pilgrim Auto's registered agent for service of process is Martin
Younce at 280 Ann Arbor Road, Plymouth, Michigan. Separate
Defendant Martin Younce ("Younce") is an individual and resident of
Michigan.
The Defendants own and operate auto repair shops in Michigan.
The Defendants employ two or more individuals who engage in
interstate commerce or business transactions, or who produce goods
to be transported or sold in interstate commerce, or who handle,
sell, or otherwise work with goods or materials that have been
moved in or produced for interstate commerce, such as auto
parts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
PILOT TRAVEL: Bid to Compel Waltrip to Arbitration Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUSTON WALTRIP, et al., Plaintiffs v. PILOT TRAVEL
CENTERS, et al., Defendant, Civ. No. 21-642 GBW/KRS (D.N.M.),
Magistrate Judge Gregory B. Wormuth of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Mexico issued an order:
a. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Jury Trial on
Arbitrability;
b. grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Motion to
Compel Arbitrability;
c. grants in part, denies in part, and defers judgment in part
the Defendants' Motion to Enforce Class Action Waiver; and
d. denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
I. Background
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay
overtime to the Plaintiffs and similarly situated truck drivers in
violation of the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"), N.M. Stat.
Ann. Section 50-4-19 et seq., and the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq.
On Oct. 27, 2021, the Defendants moved the Court to compel
arbitration, enforce class action waivers, and dismiss the
Plaintiffs' Complaint, contending that its claims "are barred
because the Plaintiffs expressly waived their rights to proceed as
a class or collective, and affirmatively agreed to resolve any and
all disputes through binding, individual arbitration." The
Plaintiffs timely responded on Nov. 29, 2021.
Briefing was complete on Dec. 27, 2021, with the timely filing of
the Defendants' reply. On March 31, 2022, the Defendants filed a
notice of recent supplemental authority, informing the Court that
the Honorable Stephan M. Vidmar had granted their Motions to Compel
Arbitration and Enforce Class Action Waiver in a companion case
involving many of the same parties.
Meanwhile, on Nov. 18, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved the Court for a
jury trial on arbitrability in their Response to the Defendants'
Motion to Stay Discovery, contending that a genuine factual dispute
about contract formation exists. The Defendants opposed this
request for procedural impropriety and lack of such a factual
issue.
On Dec. 14, 2021, the Court denied this initial jury trial request
for being made in a response brief rather than a separate motion.
On Jan. 20, 2022, the Plaintiffs renewed their request for a jury
trial via in their Motion for Jury Trial on Arbitrability. The
Defendants responded in opposition on Feb. 3, 2022, contending that
the Plaintiffs' request for a jury trial is untimely and no genuine
issues of material facts exist. Briefing was complete on this
motion on Feb. 17, 2022, with the filing of the Plaintiffs' reply.
II. Analysis
The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") permits a party to move the
Court to compel arbitration of issues covered by a valid
arbitration agreement. Substantively, the movant must show that (i)
the parties formed an agreement to arbitrate; and (ii) their
dispute falls within that agreement's scope. Formation "must always
be decided by a court." Courts also decide arbitrability -- i.e.,
whether the parties' dispute falls within the scope of their
arbitration agreement -- unless there is "clear and unmistakable
evidence" that the parties agreed to delegate this issue to the
arbitrator. Arbitrable disputes include not only the interpretation
of an agreement's scope but also gateway issues such as the
agreement's enforceability as a matter of public policy.
Procedurally, a motion to compel arbitration resembles a motion for
summary judgment: The party moving to compel arbitration bears the
initial burden of presenting evidence sufficient to demonstrate the
existence of an enforceable agreement and the opposing party's
failure, neglect, or refusal to arbitrate; if it does so, the
burden shifts to the nonmoving party to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact regarding the existence of an agreement or the
failure to comply therewith. "Evidence need not be submitted 'in a
form that would be admissible at trial'" but its "content or
substance must be admissible."
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party
opposing arbitration, the Court takes a "quick look" at the record
to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. "An
issue is 'genuine' if there is sufficient evidence on each side so
that a rational trier of fact could resolve the issue either way.
An issue of fact is `material' if under the substantive law it is
essential to the proper disposition of the claim." If a genuine
dispute of material fact exists, the Court proceeds to a summary
trial to clarify the facts. Otherwise, it resolves the two-part
inquiry as a matter of law without trial.
In the case, Judge Wormuth concludes that all the Plaintiffs except
Plaintiffs Carroll, Guerrero, and Rocha must arbitrate their
disputes with the Defendants. The Plaintiffs other than these three
executed arbitration agreements with the Defendants, which contain
conscionable provisions that clearly and unmistakably delegate
arbitrability to the arbitrator. Except for Plaintiffs Olivas and
Sanchez, the Plaintiffs other than Plaintiffs Carroll, Guerrero,
and Rocha must arbitrate as individuals because their arbitration
agreements waive class arbitration, and these waivers are not
unconscionable. Whether Plaintiffs Olivas and Sanchez may arbitrate
as a class is an issue for the arbitrator to decide.
As for Plaintiffs Carroll and Rocha, Judge Wormuth finds genuine
issues of material fact exist about whether they formed agreements
to arbitrate with the Defendants. These factual disputes will be
resolved via a summary jury trial. The Plaintiffs' request for a
jury trial in their Response to the Defendants' Motion to Stay
Discovery and Motion for Jury Trial on Arbitrability is sufficient
to invoke their statutory right to a jury trial provided in 9
U.S.C. Section 4, even if the general jury demand in the
Plaintiffs' complaint is not. Judge Wormuth denies that request for
being raised in a response but exercises discretion to revisit that
interlocutory order and grant Plaintiffs Carroll and Rocha a jury
trial.
Finally, as for Plaintiff Guerrero, Judge Wormuth holds that the
Defendants present no evidence that he formed any agreement to
arbitrate (as Plaintiff Guerrero opted into the collective action
after Defendants filed their Motions). Therefore, he denies their
Motions as to him without prejudice to their renewal.
III. Disposition
For the reasons he stated, Judge Wormuth:
(i) revisits the Plaintiffs' Motion for Jury Trial on
Arbitrability in their Response to the Defendants' Motion to Stay
Discovery, grants this Motion in part as to Plaintiffs Carroll and
Rocha, and denies this Motion in part as to other Plaintiffs;
(ii) denies the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Jury Trial on
Arbitrability as moot;
(iii) grants the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitrability
in part as to the Plaintiffs other than Plaintiffs Carroll,
Guerrero, and Rocha, denies this Motion in part as to Plaintiff
Guerrero, and defers judgment on this Motion in part as to the
Plaintiffs Carroll and Rocha pending a summary jury trial to
resolve genuine issues of material fact;
(iv) grants the Defendants' Motion to Enforce Class Action
Waivers in part as to the Plaintiffs other than Plaintiffs Carroll,
Guerrero, Rocha, Olivas, and Sanchez, denies this Motion in part as
to Plaintiffs Guerrero, Olivas, and Sanchez, and defers judgment on
this Motion in part as to Plaintiffs Carroll and Rocha pending a
summary jury trial to resolve genuine issues of material fact; and
(v) denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to all the
Plaintiffs. All denials as to Plaintiff Guerrero are without
prejudice to the parties' renewing their motions as to him.
The Plaintiffs other than Plaintiffs Carroll, Guerrero, and Rocha
will arbitrate their disputes with the Defendants. The case is
stayed as to these Plaintiffs for the pendency of their
arbitration.
The Plaintiffs other than Plaintiffs Olivas and Sanchez will
arbitrate as individuals.
The parties will appear for a telephonic trial scheduling
conference on July 20, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. to address the scheduling
and location of the summary jury trial for Plaintiffs Carroll and
Rocha and other significant pre-trial hearings. The parties will
call Judge Wormuth's teleconference line at (877) 402-9753, access
code 7578461, to connect to the proceedings.
The parties will meet and confer about the Order's application to
Plaintiff Guerrero under the following schedule: (i) the Defendants
shall, within two weeks of the entry of the Order, serve the
Plaintiffs with any exhibits about Plaintiff Guerrero's agreement
to arbitrate and/or waive class proceedings that they would attach
to any forthcoming motion to compel arbitration and/or enforce
class action waivers; (ii) the Plaintiffs shall, within one week of
their receipt of the Defendants' exhibits, serve the Defendants
with any exhibits about Plaintiff Guerrero's agreement (or
non-agreement) that they would use to oppose that forthcoming
motion; and (iii) the parties will meet and confer about the
Order's application to Plaintiff Guerrero and cooperatively file a
Joint Status Report about their conclusions within four weeks of
the entry of the Order.
If the parties do not reach a consensus about the Order's
application to Plaintiff Guerrero, the Court will set briefing
deadlines for the applicable motions for Plaintiff Guerrero at the
telephonic trial scheduling conference.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 17, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2s3fcyu3 from Leagle.com.
PIONEER METAL: Unlawfully Pays Non-Exempt Employees, Moore Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN MOORE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. PIONEER METAL FINISHING, LLC, Case No. 22-cv-692 (E.D. Wisc.,
June 15, 2022) is a collective and class action brought pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Collection Laws for purposes of obtaining relief under
the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed
upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory
and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court
may deem appropriate.
According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly operated an
unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate
the Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each
workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by:
(1) shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from
the Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post-shift
hours worked and/or work performed, to the detriment of said
employees and to the benefit of Defendant, in violation of
the FLSA and WWPCL; and
(2) failing to include all forms of non-discretionary
compensation, such as monetary bonuses, shift
differentials,
incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in
all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees'
regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes, in
violation of the FLSA and WWPCL.
The Defendant's failure to compensate its hourly paid, non-exempt
employees for compensable work performed each workweek, including
but not limited to at an overtime rate of pay, was intentional,
willful, and violated federal law as set forth in the FLSA and
state law as set forth in the WWPCL, the suit added.
Pioneer Metal is a manufacturer and metal finishing company that
owns, operates, and managed multiple physical locations across the
United States, including in the State of Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-Mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
PORCH.COM INC: Liberti CFA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PAUL LIBERTI and SUZANNE LIBERTI, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PORCH.COM, INC. and
JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. BUR-L-865-22, was removed from the
Superior Court of New Jersey, County of Burlington, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on June 14, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
1:22-cv-03816-KMW-EAP to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Consumer Fraud Act, the New Jersey Truth-In-Consumer-Contract,
Warranty and Notice Act, the New Jersey Contractor's Registration
Act, the Home Improvement Contractor Registration Regulations, and
the Home Improvement Practices Regulations.
Porch.com, Inc. is a company that operates an online website which
connects homeowners with local home improvement contractors, based
in Seattle, Washington. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael A. Spizzuco, Jr., Esq.
BRACH EICHLER LLC
101 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 228-5700
Facsimile: (973) 618-5944
E-mail: mspizzuco@bracheichler.com
PROBST PRESERVES: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Probst Preserves Inc.
The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Probst Preserves Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05033 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Probst Preserves Inc. is located in Heber City, Utah and is part of
the Fruit and Vegetable Preserving and Specialty Food Manufacturing
Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
PROFESSIONAL DIRECTIONAL: Snoddy FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JIM SNODDY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PROFESSIONAL DIRECTIONAL ENTERPRISES,
INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00096, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas on June 14, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 4:22-cv-01935 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.
Mr. Snoddy worked for the Defendant as a directional drilling
supervisor from approximately October 2017 through February 2020.
Professional Directional Enterprises, Inc. is a provider of
horizontal and directional drilling services to oil and gas
operators throughout the United States, located in Conroe, Texas.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sue L. Robinson, Esq.
Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
FARNAN LLP
919 North Market St., 12th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 777-0300
Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
E-mail: srobinson@farnanlaw.com
bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
cfitz@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: 6th Cir. Vacates Order Dismissing Cowley Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSHUA COWLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. PRUDENTIAL
SECURITY, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-1635 (6th Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacates the
district court's order dismissing the case for lack of prosecution
and remands for reconsideration.
I. Introduction
In 2019, Cowley sued Prudential in the Eastern District of
California. But Prudential got the case transferred to the Eastern
District of Michigan. Not too long afterwards, the Eastern District
of Michigan issued a notice instructing the parties' counsel to
file appearances. The notice advised that attorneys must be
admitted to practice in their new venue before they can appear on
the docket. And so Cowley's legal team set out to find a local
lawyer to sponsor their admission. But they took an awfully long
time going about it, and several months went by without an
appearance and without any communication to the trial court.
Believing that Cowley had abandoned the litigation, and without
warning, the district court dismissed the case without prejudice
for failure to prosecute. But the district court's brief order did
not address the circuit's four-factor test for dismissal for
failure to prosecute. Cowley appeals.
II. Background
Mr. Cowley worked for Prudential as a security guard. In 2019, he
filed a putative class action in the Eastern District of
California, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and a collection of California wage and hour laws. He
claimed that Prudential underpaid its security guards and denied
them meal and rest periods.
Skip ahead to July 2020, and Prudential moved to transfer the case
to the Eastern District of Michigan. The court granted that motion
several months later, in January 2021. Sometime between January and
March, Cowley's counsel called the Eastern District of Michigan to
find out when the docket would open in their new venue. But the
clerk's office did not provide a specific date.
The Eastern District of Michigan opened the docket on March 3,
2021. And on that same day, it issued a text-only notice.
To comply with local rules, Cowley, whose counsel was not a member
of the State Bar of Michigan, was required to "specify as local
counsel a member of the bar of [the Eastern District of Michigan]
with an office in the district." Cowley claims he "ramped up his
search for local counsel in earnest" almost two weeks after
receiving the district court's notice, beginning on March 15, 2021.
Of course, Cowley had known about the transfer as early as
January.
Three months passed without any updates from Cowley's counsel. On
June 11, 2021, the district court dismissed the action without
prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court issued a
three-sentence order finding that "the parties had clearly
abandoned the litigation." Even though the dismissal was without
prejudice, it created some issues for Cowley as a practical matter.
That's because the FLSA's two-year statute of limitations narrows
his claim significantly. The timing of the dismissal would cabin
Cowley's damages and require him to reckon with a willfulness
requirement as well.
Mr. Cowley, having located local counsel, followed up with a Rule
60(b)(1) motion for relief from dismissal. He claimed, despite his
months-long radio silence, that his California counsel had worked
diligently to pin down local counsel. As Cowley put it, his lawyers
spent several weeks "engaging in diligent efforts to research and
obtain referrals" before eventually reaching out to potential
counsel in April 2021. Negotiations allegedly lasted a couple
months for some reason, and Cowley finally sealed the deal at the
tail-end of June 2021. But in September 2021, the district court
denied Cowley's motion for relief from dismissal. And so Cowley
appealed.
III. Discussion
When evaluating Rule 41(b) dismissals for failure to prosecute, the
Sixth Circuit applies a four-factor test. More specifically, it
must consider "(1) whether the party's failure is due to
willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether the adversary was
prejudiced by the dismissed party's conduct; (3) whether the
dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to
dismissal; and (4) whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or
considered before dismissal was ordered."
Under the first factor of its test, the Sixth Circuit has
emphasized -- even where the dismissal was without prejudice --
that "the dismissal of 'a claim for failure to prosecute is a harsh
sanction which the court should order only in extreme situations
showing a clear record of contumacious conduct by the plaintiff.'"
Contumacious conduct means "stubbornly disobedient and willfully
contemptuous." Or put another way, the court should ask, before
choosing to dismiss the case: Did Cowley "display either an intent
to thwart judicial proceedings or a reckless disregard for the
effect of his conduct on those proceedings"? While counsel's
conduct was dilatory, the Sixth Circuit opines that the facts seem
to fall a bit short of this bar. But the district court might see
it differently, in which case the Sixth Circuit would review any
such finding for clear error.
The Sixth Circuit must also consider prejudice. When considering
prejudice, it normally looks to whether the non-dilatory party
"wasted time, money, and effort in pursuit of cooperation which it
was legally obligated to provide." Prudential contends that because
this is a wage and hour action, the potential damages continued to
grow with every delay. On the other hand, Prudential did not enter
an appearance either, and Cowley's counsel represented that the
parties continued to negotiate a settlement during the period
Cowley let the docket sit idle.
And as to the third and fourth factors, the district court did not
issue a warning or "consider the imposition of less severe
alternative sanctions before dismissing the case." But because no
parties had appeared on the docket, a dismissal without prejudice
may have been the least severe sanction the court could have
imposed at the time. Now that the parties have appeared, however,
the court remains free to consider Cowley's conduct, and any
prejudice it caused to Prudential, in fashioning an alternative
sanction less severe than dismissal should it conclude that
dismissal is not appropriate under the test set out.
IV. Conclusion
The Sixth Circuit vacates the district court's order dismissing the
case for lack of prosecution and remands for reconsideration
consistent with its Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 15, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3ky68bzr from Leagle.com.
RALPH LAUREN: Faces Class Suit Over Sweaters' Pima Cotton Labels
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Balsamini at Ralph Lauren Corp. tried to pull the wool over
the eyes of customers who bought one of their pricey sweaters, a
woman claims in a class-action lawsuit.
The sweater saga began in November 2019 when Texas resident Gloria
Miramontes bought a women's burgundy lightweight V-neck from a
Ralph Lauren Polo Factory store in El Paso.
Miramontes believed the sweater was made exclusively of pima cotton
based on the tags, which boasted, "Fine luxurious yarns crafted
from Pima Cotton fibers distinguish this signature design, knit in
a fine gauge stitch for lightweight comfort and an exquisitely soft
hand," court documents show.
Pima cotton is a higher-end product with a longer fiber than
conventional cotton. It has a reputation for producing a smooth
fabric that's soft to the touch, wrinkle-resistant, and
ultra-durable.
But consumers were short-changed, the Manhattan Federal Court
lawsuit alleges, because the fibers in the sweater were a few
tenths of an inch too short to be pima, which the US Department of
Agriculture measures at 1.3125 inches long on average.
Lab tests proved the Ralph Lauren sweaters weren't 100% pima
cotton, said Miramontes' attorney, Spencer Sheehan.
Miramontes claims she would not have forked over $39.99 if she had
known it was not entirely pima, the suit says.
Pima cotton is typically more expensive, so "there is great
incentive to mix cotton byproducts and shorter fibers with higher
value longer fibers," according to the court papers, which were
filed in New York based on the Manhattan location of Polo's
headquarters, plaintiff's attorneys said.
The Lauren V-neck sweater was sold in "thousands of locations,"
according to the $5 million class action lawsuit, which includes
customers from 19 states, including New York.
The Ralph Lauren Corp. declined comment. Lauren is not named
individually as a defendant. [GN]
RED ROBIN: Avalos-Aviles Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Red Robin
International Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jose Jesus
Avalos-Aviles, on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. Red Robin International Inc., Does 1-10, Case
No. 34-2022-00320877-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.,
May 31, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. -- https://www.redrobin.com/ --
more commonly known as Red Robin Gourmet Burgers and Brews or
simply Red Robin, is an American chain of casual dining restaurants
founded in September 1969 in Seattle, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Orlando J Villalba, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park E., Ste. 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533
Phone: 310-712-8002
Email: Orlando.Villalba@capstonelawyers.com
REMINGTON SEEDS: Haenlein Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Haenlein, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Remington Seeds, LLC, Case No.
2022CH03768 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
May 31, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-02849 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Remington Seeds -- https://remingtonseeds.com/ -- is recognized as
the lead provider in the corn, soybean and wheat seed
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam John Florek, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, APLC
73 West Monroe Street, 5th Floor
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (973) 476-5650
Email: aflorek@peifferwolf.com
- and -
Brandon Michael Wise, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Phone: (314) 833-4825
Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com
- and -
Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
3853 Dutch Bottom Road
Arnold, MO 63010
Email: plesko@simmonsfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregory P. Abrams, Esq.
Justin O'Neill Kay, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
320 South Canal Street, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 569-1000
Email: gregory.abrams@faegredrinker.com
Email: justin.kay@faegredrinker.com
- and -
Taylor Lee Haran, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
311 South Wacker, Suite 4300
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 212-2268
Email: taylor.haran@faegredrinker.com
RIO GRANDE: Uranga Seeks Minimum Wages for Delivery Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------
SARLA URANGA, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. RIO GRANDE PIZZA, INC., and GORDON E. NELSON, Case No.
1:22-cv-00452-LF-KK (D.N.M., June 15, 2022) is a collective action
lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to the Plaintiff and
similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its
Domino's stores.
The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers.
According to the complaint, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers
for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their
vehicles, Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement
rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any
reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the
drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the
federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from March 2019 to October
2020 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's store located in
Rio Rancho, New Mexico.
The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.
Gordon E. Nelson is the director of corporate Defendant Rio Grande
Pizza Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Forester, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com
ROB ROY: Palkon Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------
Dennis Palkon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ROB ROY, DONALD D. SNYDER, ANGELA N. ARCHON, JASON
GENRICH, LIANE J. PELLETIER, ZAREH SARRAFIAN, KIMBERLY H. SHEEHY,
THOMAS A. THOMAS, BRYAN E. WOLF, DIGITALBRIDGE GROUP INC., IFM
INVESTORS PTY LTD, SUNSHINE BIDCO INC., SUNSHINE MERGER SUB, LTD.,
AND SUNSHINE PARENT MERGER SUB INC., Case No. A-22-853216-B (Nev.
18th Judicial Ct., Clark Cty., May 26, 2022), is brought on behalf
all other public stockholders of Switch, Inc. against the Company's
Board of Directors (the "Individual Defendants"), DigitalBridge
Group, Inc., and IFM Investors Pty Ltd (collectively referred to
herein as the "Defendants"), seeking to enjoin Individual
Defendants from further breaching their fiduciary duties in their
pursuit of a sale of the Company at an unfair price through an
unfair process that was tilted in favor of DigitalBridge and IFM
(the "Proposed Acquisition").
The Company's most recent quarterly report demonstrated the success
of Switch's business. On May 10, 2022, after the market closed, the
Company announced increased revenue, income from operations, and
adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and
amortization ("EBITDA"). However, Switch's stockholders were unable
to benefit from these stellar financial results. The next day, on
May 11, 2022, Defendants announced that the Board had agreed to
sell Switch to affiliates of DigitalBridge and IFM, wherein
DigitalBridge and IFM will acquire all of the outstanding common
stock of Switch for just $34.25 per share in cash (the "Proposed
Consideration"), in a transaction valued at approximately $11
billion. Upon completion of the Proposed Acquisition, Switch will
become a privately held company and its shares will no longer be
listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).
The Proposed Acquisition is the result of an unfair and
self-serving process that produced consideration of $34.25 per
share, which materially undervalues the Company. The Proposed
Consideration represents just an 11.5% premium over the Company's
average stock price for the month before the announcement. By
comparison, similar transactions over the past three years average
a one month premium of nearly 35%. In addition, at least three
analysts have target prices over the Proposed Acquisition. The
Proposed Acquisition, however, allows key individuals to cash out
their significant Switch holdings, while also maintaining their
lucrative and prestigious positions. In particular, defendant Rob
Roy ("Roy"), Switch's founder and Chief Executive Officer, will
receive nearly $100 million in merger consideration, including over
$37 million in accelerated vesting of stock awards. Defendant
Thomas A. Thomas ("Thomas") will receive over $107 million in
merger consideration. They will be about to receive this over $200
million in cash immediately upon the close of the Proposed
Acquisition without worrying that their sales will drive down the
price of Switch's stock. Further, Switch will retain its key
management after the close of the Proposed Acquisition, including
defendant Roy.
Further, the Proposed Acquisition is subject to a number of "deal
protection" devices that ensure that Switch will only be sold to
the Individual Defendants' preferred acquirer. In particular, the
Merger Agreement contains a "no solicitation" provision, preventing
the Board from seeking other bidders for the Company. In the
unlikely event that a bidder does emerge on its own without
solicitation and offers a superior bid, DitigalBridge and IFM have
four days to match any potential offer. Most egregiously, the Board
agreed to a termination fee of $260 million. In the event Switch
decides to enter into a transaction with a superior bidder, the
Merger Agreement requires switch to pay the $260 million to
DigitalBridge and IFM. This payment represents approximately 5.05%
of the total equity value of the Proposed Acquisition and increases
the amount that a competing bidder would have to offer to acquire
the Company by at least $1.73 per share before it would even
potentially qualify as a superior proposal under the Merger
Agreement.
In pursuing their unlawful plan to merge Switch into DigitalBridge
and IFM, the Individual Defendants, who are directors and officers
of Switch, have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and
care. The other Defendants have aided and abetted the Individual
Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties, says the complaint.
The Non-defendant Switch is a technology infrastructure ecosystem
corporation whose core business is the design, construction and
operation of advanced data centers.
The Plaintiff is an owner of Switch stock.
The Defendant Roy has been Switch's CEO and Chairman of the Board
since June 2017.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Aldrich, Esq.
ALDRICH LAW FIRM, LTD.
7866 West Sahara Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Phone: (702) 853-5490
Facsimile: (702) 227-1975
Email: jaldrich@johnaldrichlawfirm.com
- and -
Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
Eric M. Carrino, Esq.
ROBBINS LLP
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 525-3990
Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
Email: brobbins@robbinsllp.com
soddo@robbinsllp.com
ecarrino@robbinsllp.com
SAN DIEGO: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit for $1-M
------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, San Diego Family Care (SDFC) settled a class action
related to a 2020 data breach for $1 million. The class includes
all SDFC patients (or their parents/guardians) who received a
breach notification in May 2021.
SDFC offers patients primary care services as well as dental and
mental health care, has eight health centers in San Diego and
examines thousands of patients. In December 2020, SDFC was the
victim of a data breach, leading to the unauthorized disclosure of
names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, account numbers,
treatment information, insurance data, and other sensitive patient
data. The breach occurred as a result of SDFC's technology-hosting
provider's lax security safeguards. The provider was the victim of
a breach, which led to the attack on SDFC. SDFC stated in the
notification letter that it learned of the breach in January 2021.
The complaints in the consolidated class actions allege that SDFC
failed to protect patients' information during the 2020 data
breach, and that SDFC did not promptly notify patients upon
learning of the breach so they could take steps to protect
themselves from identity theft or other harm.
Eligible class members may receive cash payments up to $100 and may
also submit documentation for reimbursement for ordinary
out-of-pocket expenses of up to $1,000 and up to $5,000 for
extraordinary out-of-pocket expenses. Each class member may also
redeem identity theft protection services within 90 days of
receiving a code for such services. The court is scheduled to issue
its final approval of the settlement on July 29, 2022, and class
members have until July 15, 2022, to submit a claim for
reimbursement. [GN]
SANTANDER SECURITIES: U.S. Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 20, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of claims under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against a bank and its affiliates (the
"Bank"). Ponsa-Rabell v. Santander Sec. LLC, et al., No. 20-01857
(1st Cir. May 20, 2022). Plaintiffs alleged the Bank devised a
scheme to defraud investors into purchasing Puerto Rican government
bonds by omitting material information about the state of the
market and about its own alleged program to rid itself of those
securities. The appeal did not pertain to the district court's
dismissal of claims under Section 17(a) of the 1933 Securities Act
or Plaintiffs' claims brought under Puerto Rican law for which the
district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after
dismissing plaintiffs' securities claims.
According to the Complaint, the Bank acted as broker to plaintiffs
who allegedly purchased Puerto Rico Municipal Bonds, Puerto Rico
Closed End Funds, and Puerto Rico Open End Funds (collectively the
"PRMB securities") from December 1, 2012 to October 31, 2013 (the
"Putative Class Period"). Plaintiffs alleged that the PRMB
securities were marketed to the public via fund-specific
prospectuses that disclosed the fund's investment objectives, risk
factors, and tax consequences, along with investment risks
associated with each particular fund. According to the Complaint,
the PRMB securities were "attractive investments" that offered
relatively high interest and were exempt from Puerto Rican and
Federal income and estate taxes. Shortly before the Putative Class
Period, however, the Complaint alleges that Puerto Rico began
experiencing an economic recession, which made investments in the
PRMB securities particularly risky. Plaintiffs alleged that during
the recession, Puerto Rico issued billions of dollars in PRMB
securities and used the proceeds to pay off existing debts rather
than to stimulate the Puerto Rican economy. Puerto Rico's deficit
allegedly increased to approximately $2.2 billion and became
unpayable.
According to the Complaint, in 2012, various public sources began
warning about the increased risks of holding PRMB securities,
including a March 2012 published report that warned that Puerto
Rico was "flirting with insolvency", and an August 2012 report from
Moody's Investor Service ("Moody's") lowering Puerto Rico's bond
credit rating to Baa1 and advising that "[c]onservative investors .
. . should pursue portfolio diversification." Plaintiffs' alleged
that on December 13, 2012, Moody's again downgraded Puerto Rico's
credit rating to Baa3, "just above junk bond status." The Complaint
alleges that the bond market "crashed" in the fall of 2013,
resulting in financial losses for all those who invested in PRMB
securities. Plaintiffs alleged that leading up to this crash, the
Bank actively tried to rid itself of its PRMB securities inventory
"at an accelerated pace," which, according to plaintiffs, motivated
the Bank to sell the securities to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed
their initial complaint against the Bank four years after the
crash, alleging that they never would have purchased the PRMB
securities if the Bank had disclosed the risk of the crash. The
district court dismissed the federal securities claims with
prejudice and the state law claims without prejudice, and
plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the Section 10(b)
claims-specifically, whether plaintiffs sufficiently pled (i) a
material misrepresentation or omission, and (ii) scienter.
The First Circuit first considered the misstatement or omission
element of plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim. Plaintiffs alleged that
two disclosures in the fund prospectus were "fatally defective"
because of information the Bank omitted. In the disclosures, the
Bank allegedly disclosed that "there is no Assurance that a
Secondary Market for the Offered Bonds will Develop," and that "the
Underwriters are not obligated to do so [meaning to guarantee a
secondary market] and any such market making may be discontinued at
any time at the sole discretion of the Underwriters." Plaintiffs
contended that these disclosures did not include material facts
which were necessary to make them not misleading; namely, that
market conditions were deteriorating in Puerto Rico and that the
Bank was selling off its own inventory of PRMB securities for that
very reason. Plaintiffs further alleged that even if the omitted
information was public, it did not relieve the Bank of its duty to
disclose the information at the time plaintiffs allegedly purchased
the PRMB securities, or of its ongoing obligation to update its
prospectuses.
In affirming the district court's decision, the Court rejected
plaintiffs' argument that the Bank should have disclosed
information regarding the deteriorating market conditions, holding
that the Bank "was simply not under any duty to repeat information
already known or readily accessible to investors." In so holding,
the Court maintained that "it is not a material omission to fail to
point out information of which the market is already aware" and
added that "plaintiffs' own complaint points to public statements
about the deteriorating economy in Puerto Rico."
Turning to plaintiffs' allegation that the Bank should have
disclosed that it was divesting itself of the PRMB securities, the
Court similarly affirmed the district court's dismissal. In
particular, the Court distinguished Tutor Perini Corp. v. Banc of
Am. Sec. LLC, 842 F.3d 71, 90 (1st Cir. 2016), a case in which a
bank allegedly knew the market for a particular security was "on
the brink of collapse" when it allegedly encouraged plaintiff to
purchase more of the securities while rapidly selling the same
securities. The Court distinguished Tutor on the basis that the
bank there had a "special relationship" with plaintiff as its
investment advisor; whereas, in contrast here, plaintiffs made no
allegations that they had a special relationship or had given any
particularized investment instructions to the Bank that would
support a duty to disclose. The Court determined that plaintiffs
merely alleged that the Bank "solicited" (or recommended) they
purchase the PRMB securities, and that their investment objectives
were to "preserve capital" and "current fixed income." Further, the
Court held that, unlike in Tutor, plaintiffs made no allegation
that the Bank promised to outline the risks of their investment or
failed to inform plaintiffs of a market crash they knew was
occurring. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's
holding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege an actionable
omission. After making his finding, the Court noted that it was
able to avoid a lengthy analysis concerning whether plaintiffs
sufficiently pled scienter. [GN]
SCHNECK MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aubrey Woods at tribtown.com reports that Schneck Medical Center
faces a class action lawsuit related to a data breach that occurred
Sept. 29, 2021.
That lawsuit was filed on behalf of Jalen Nierman and all others
who may have been affected by the data breach, which he contends
the Seymour hospital deliberately underplayed its severity and
misrepresented there was no evidence cybercriminals had "misused"
the stolen information even though Schneck knew the cybercriminals
had infiltrated its systems for months without detection.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Columbus man in Jackson
Superior Court I in Brownstown by the Indianapolis law firm of
Cohen and Malad LLP and the Madison, Wisconsin, law firm of Turke
and Strauss LLP.
According to a prepared statement from the hospital, "Schneck
Medical Center has no evidence that any of the information was or
will be misused; however, out of an abundance of caution, Schneck
notified individuals whose information was included in the limited
number of files involved in this incident. Notified individuals
have been provided with credit monitoring services where applicable
and best practices to protect their information. As a team of
dedicated and caring medical professionals, we understand that
health care is about people taking care of people, and Schneck is
committed to its patients, their treatment and their families as
well as to protecting the privacy and security of their personal
information."
The lawsuit further contends Schneck had lost control of at least
92,000 of its former and current patients' highly sensitive
personal and medical information to cybercriminals and then failed
to adequately notify victims of the breach.
The stolen personal health information included at least patients'
names, contact information, addresses, dates of birth, financial
account and/or credit card information, medical records and
diagnoses, driver's license numbers and Social Security numbers,
according to the lawsuit.
The 16-page lawsuit also contends cybercriminals were able to
breach Schneck's systems because the hospital did not maintain
reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect its
patients' PHI, leaving it an unguarded target for theft and
misuse.
It further contends Schneck's failure to timely detect and notify
breach victims violates Indiana law and has made its patients
vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their
financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of
their public health information. Because of the data breach,
Schneck also failed to adhere to the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996 aka HIPAA, according to court
documents.
The lawsuit, which seeks damages to be determined, asks the judge
to direct Schneck to adequately safeguard the personal health
information of the plaintiff by implementing improved security
procedures and measures and provide notice to each member of the
class relating to full nature and extent of the data breach and the
disclosure of protected health information to unauthorized
persons.
On or about May 17, Schneck started notifying breach victims that
hackers had gained unauthorized access to patients' confidential
personal identifying information and/or protected health
information. [GN]
SCHNECK MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
therepublic.com reports that Schneck Medical Center faces a class
action lawsuit related to a data breach that occurred Sept. 29,
2021.
That lawsuit was filed on behalf of Jalen Nierman and all others
who may have been affected by the data breach, which he contends
the Seymour hospital deliberately underplayed its severity and
misrepresented there was no evidence cybercriminals had "misused"
the stolen information even though Schneck knew the cybercriminals
had infiltrated its systems for months without detection.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Columbus man in Jackson
Superior Court I in Brownstown by the Indianapolis law firm of
Cohen and Malad LLP and the Madison, Wisconsin, law firm of Turke
and Strauss LLP.
Schneck officials issued a statement, saying "Schneck Medical
Center has no evidence that any of the information was or will be
misused. However, out of an abundance of caution, Schneck notified
individuals whose information was included in the limited number of
files involved in this incident. Notified individuals have been
provided with credit monitoring services where applicable, and best
practices to protect their information. As a team of dedicated and
caring medical professionals, we understand that healthcare is
about people taking care of people and Schneck is committed to its
patients, their treatment and their families - as well as to
protecting the privacy and security of their personal
information."
The lawsuit contends Schneck had lost control of at least 92,000 of
its former and current patients' highly sensitive personal and
medical information to cybercriminals and then failed to adequately
notify victims of the breach.
The stolen personal health information included at least patients'
names, contact information, addresses, dates of birth, financial
account and/or credit card information, medical records and
diagnoses, driver's license numbers and Social Security numbers,
according to the lawsuit.
The 16-page lawsuit also contends cybercriminals were able to
breach Schneck's systems because the hospital did not maintain
reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect its
patients' PHI, leaving it an unguarded target for theft and
misuse.
It further contends Schneck's failure to timely detect and notify
breach victims violates Indiana law and has made its patients
vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their
financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of
their public health information. Because of the data breach,
Schneck also failed to adhere to the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996 aka HIPPA, according to court
documents.
The lawsuit, which seeks damages to be determined, asks the judge
to direct Schneck to adequately safeguard the personal health
information of the plaintiff by implementing improved security
procedures and measures and provide notice to each member of the
class relating to full nature and extent of the data breach and the
disclosure of protected health information to unauthorized
persons.
On or about May 17, Schneck started notifying breach victims that
hackers had gained unauthorized access to patients' confidential
personal identifying information and/or protected health
information. [GN]
SCHNECK MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Schneck Medical Center faces a class action lawsuit related to a
data breach that occurred Sept. 29, 2021.
That lawsuit was filed on behalf of Jalen Nierman and all others
who may have been affected by the data breach, which he contends
the Seymour hospital deliberately underplayed its severity and
misrepresented there was no evidence cybercriminals had "misused"
the stolen information even though Schneck knew the cybercriminals
had infiltrated its systems for months without detection.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Columbus man in Jackson
Superior Court I in Brownstown by the Indianapolis law firm of
Cohen and Malad LLP and the Madison, Wisconsin, law firm of Turke
and Strauss LLP.
Schneck did not respond to a request for comment about the
lawsuit.
The lawsuit further contends Schneck had lost control of at least
92,000 of its former and current patients' highly sensitive
personal and medical information to cybercriminals and then failed
to adequately notify victims of the breach.
The stolen personal health information included at least patients'
names, contact information, addresses, dates of birth, financial
account and/or credit card information, medical records and
diagnoses, driver's license numbers and Social Security numbers,
according to the lawsuit.
The 16-page lawsuit also contends cybercriminals were able to
breach Schneck's systems because the hospital did not maintain
reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect its
patients' PHI, leaving it an unguarded target for theft and
misuse.
It further contends Schneck's failure to timely detect and notify
breach victims violates Indiana law and has made its patients
vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their
financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of
their public health information. Because of the data breach,
Schneck also failed to adhere to the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996 aka HIPPA, according to court
documents. [GN]
SECURITY KING: Clarke Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Clarke, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in
the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. Security King International
LLC, Bee Amato, and Akiva "Doe", Case No. 1:22-cv-05082 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 16, 2022) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to
recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated and statutory damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Labor
Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.
Mr. Clarke was employed as a security guard at Defendants' security
company. He was employed as a non-managerial employee at Security
King International company from August 2020 through and including
October 2020.
The Defendants own, operate and/or control Security King
International, located at 12 College Road, Monsey, New York. The
Individual Defendants possess operational control over the
Corporate Defendant, possess an ownership interest in the Corporate
Defendant, and controls significant functions of the Corporate
Defendant. The Defendants are associated and joint employers, act
in the interest of each other with respect to employees, pay
employees by the same method, and share control over the
employees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42 nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
SGE MGMT: $10-Mil. Award of Attorneys' Fees in Torres Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Scott M. Clearman, individually and on behalf of The
Clearman Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Appellant v. Andrew Jack Kochanowski,
individually and on behalf of Sommers Schwartz, P.C.; Eric Franklin
Citron, individually and on behalf of Goldstein & Russell, P.C.;
Jeffrey West Burnett, individually and on behalf of Jeffery W.
Burnett, P.C.; Matthew J.M. Prebeg, individually and on behalf of
Prebeg, Faucett & Abbott, P.L.L.C.; Juan Ramon Torres, as
Representative of the Estate of Eugene Robison; Christopher
Robison, as Representative of the Estate of Eugene Robison; Lucas
("Luke") Thomas, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals; Thomas C. Goldstein, individually and on
behalf of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., Appellees, Case No. 21-20518
(5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirms
the district court's award of approximately $10 million in
attorneys' fees after the settlement of the class action.
I. Introduction
The appeal arises from the district court's award of approximately
$10 million in attorneys' fees after the settlement of the class
action. The Fifth Circuit first reviewed the fee award in 2019 but,
because the district court failed to apply the factors set out in
Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th
Cir. 1974), overruled on other grounds, Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489
U.S. 87 (1989), it vacated and remanded with instructions to the
district court to elaborate on its reasoning. See Torres v. SGE
Mgmt., L.L.C. ("Torres I"), 945 F.3d 347, 355 (5th Cir. 2019). At
issue now is whether the district court properly explained its
findings and reasonings under the Johnson framework on remand.
II. Background
On remand, Appellant Scott Clearman successfully moved to recuse
Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt from the proceedings and the matter was
transferred to Judge Charles R. Eskridge, III -- Torres v. SGE
Mgmt., LLC ("Torres II"), No. 4:09-cv-02056, 2021 WL 3661528, at *2
(S.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2021). Judge Eskridge directed the parties to
address their positions under the Johnson framework with respect to
the record previously before Judge Hoyt. After independently
reviewing all materials and considering each of the Johnson
factors, Judge Eskridge adopted the original fee award.
Mr. Clearman, who sought between 30% and 50% of the award and
received roughly 15%, challenges the allocation. All other counsel
("Appellees") argue that the allocation is fair and reasonable.
III. Analysis
The Fifth Circuit reviews a district court's award of attorneys'
fees for abuse of discretion, its factual findings for clear error,
and its legal conclusions de novo. A district court abuses its
discretion when it relies on an erroneous application of the law or
on a clearly erroneous evaluation of the evidence.
First, Clearman argues that the district court abused its
discretion because it stated that its recitation of the facts was
"drawn from the unanimous panel opinion" in Torres I. In a similar
vein, Clearman asserts that the district court failed to
independently review the record and "simply adopted Judge Hoyt's
precise allocation." The Fifth Circuit rejects both contentions
holdings that the district court supported its findings of fact
with citations to the record in a thorough, 19-page opinion
discussing each of the Johnson factors.
Second, Clearman argues that the district court abused its
discretion because judicial estoppel bars Appellee Matthew J.M.
Prebeg of Prebeg, Faucett & Abbott, P.L.L.C. ("PFA") from receiving
fees relating to the class action. Clearman points to state-court
proceedings between himself and PFA dissolving the Clearman Prebeg
LLP partnership in 2015, during the pendency of the class action
proceedings. He concludes, Prebeg is judicially estopped from
arguing that it should be awarded attorneys' fees in the instant
proceedings.
Mr. Prebeg responds that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,
the determination of attorneys' fees is the exclusive province of
the federal district court and outside agreements and state court
settlements do not bind its award. Clearman, in turn, counters that
district courts do not have authority over the distribution of
attorneys' fees between independent counsel representing the class,
only over the full sum of the attorneys' fee aw ard.
The Fifth Circuit agrees with Prebeg. It explains that the district
court is tasked with ensuring that the attorneys' fee award is fair
and reasonable, and that includes the individual fee awards. Thus,
the settlement agreement that dissolved the Clearman Prebeg LLP
partnership did not deprive the district court of authority over
the fee allocation between the individual, independent counsel.
Third, Clearman argues that the district court erred as a matter of
law when it struck his first fee petition for failure to submit
contemporaneous billing records or similar objective evidence. To
evaluate the first Johnson factor -- the "time and labor required
for the litigation" -- courts customarily require the applicant to
produce contemporaneous billing records or other sufficient
documentation so that the district court can fulfill its duty to
examine the application for noncompensable hours. While the failure
to provide contemporaneous billing records "does not preclude an
award of fees per se," the evidence submitted must be "adequate to
determine reasonable hours."
The Fifth Circuit holds that Clearman failed to produce
contemporaneous billing statements or similarly reliable evidence
of time spent on the suit in his first fee petition. At the urging
of the Class Representatives, the district court struck the
petition and allowed Clearman to file a new motion for attorneys'
fees that included reconstructed records of his time spent, his
usual rates, and his incurred expenses. The court needed a
sufficient factual basis, consistent with the Johnson factors, on
which to base its attorneys' fee award. The district court did not
err when it struck Clearman's first fee petition and directed him
to refile with adequate records.
Nor did the district court err when it struck Clearman's attempt to
submit new evidence and new arguments in support of his fee
petition on remand. It correctly concluded that the renewed fee
petition, submitted in February 2020, violated the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure because the deadline for class members to consider
and object to a fee petition had already passed in October 2018.
Under Rule 23(h), parties must file motions for attorneys' fees
before the deadline to object to the settlement. The district court
did not err when it limited the record to the evidence that existed
for the first fee allocation.
Fourth, the Fifth Circuit rejects Clearman's contention that the
district court abused its discretion because it "relied only on
'time sheets' to consider the 'time and labor involved'" under the
first Johnson factor. After considering Clearman's filings on
remand, the district court recognized that Clearman had "no doubt
devoted many hours to this case over a number of years." However,
it found that the first Johnson factor did not weigh in Clearman's
favor "for the simple reason that no reliable records credibly
established his time and labor invested in the case." Where the
documentation is inadequate or unreliable, it is within the sound
discretion of the district court to determine a reasonable fee
award. Clearman fails to specify evidence in the record
establishing that the district court's evaluation was clearly
erroneous.
Finally, the Fifth Circuit rejects Clearman's arguments that the
district court abused its discretion when it determined that the
eighth Johnson factor -- the results obtained -- did not favor
Clearman. Clearman fails to point to evidence opposing the district
court's factual finding that Clearman "simply wasn't as
substantially involved in certifying the class or thereafter,"
which the court found "is what most directly enabled successful
settlement." Rather, Clearman conceded that his participation in
the class certification briefing and hearing "was much diminished."
In addition, he fails to demonstrate that his asserted negotiation
for the inclusion of approximately 15% of the class to the final
settlement -- the Georgian class members -- is incompatible with
his reward of 15% of the fees. The district court did not abuse its
discretion when it compared "counsels' respective contributions for
the common benefit," and found that the eighth factor weighed in
favor of all counsel other than Clearman.
IV. Order
For the foregoing reasons, the Fifth Circuit affirms.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 15, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/u482hx5e from Leagle.com.
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Berry Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
ANTWAN BERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-03118 (N.D. Ill., June 14, 2022) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law and the payment provisions of the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
employee from February 2018 until April 2022.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to compensate him
and other similarly situated hourly-paid employees for all hours
they have worked. Specifically, they were not paid for the breaks,
lasting approximately fifteen minutes, which the Defendant required
them to take and to clock out for those breaks. The law states that
rest periods are customarily paid for as working time and must be
counted as hours worked, the Plaintiff alleges.
Consequently, despite regularly or occasionally working over 40
hours in a week, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
hourly-paid employees were not sufficiently paid for their lawfully
earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek, says the suit.
On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated hourly-paid
employees, the Plaintiff seeks damages for all unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fee, litigation costs,
and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
The Sherwin-Williams Company is an American Cleveland, Ohio–based
company in the paint and coating manufacturing industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
SHIELDS HEALTH: Fails to Protect Consumers' Info, Smith Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LISA SMITH, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SHIELDS HEALTH CARE GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-10932
(D. Mass., June 15, 2022) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of
all persons whose sensitive personal information (SPI) was
compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately
protect consumers' SPI, (ii) adequately warn its current and former
customers and potential customers of its inadequate information
security practices, and (iii) effectively monitor its platforms for
security vulnerabilities and incidents.
Shields Health Care Group is a medical services provider which
provides, among other things, MRIs, PET/CT scans, and ambulatory
surgical services for patients in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New
Hampshire, and Maine.
On June 8, 2022, Shields announced publicly that on March 28, 2022,
it had been the recipient of a hack and exfiltration of SPI
involving approximately two million of its clients (the "Data
Breach").
Shields reported that this SPI included at least names, dates of
birth, Social Security numbers, addresses, provider information,
diagnosis, billing information, insurance information, medical
record numbers, patient IDs, and "other medical or treatment
information."
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class members now
face a present and imminent lifetime risk of identity theft, which
is heightened here by the loss of Social Security numbers. The
information stolen in cyber-attacks allows the modern thief to
assume victims' identities when carrying out criminal acts such
as:
-- Filing fraudulent tax returns;
-- Using the victim's credit history;
-- Making financial transactions on behalf of victims, including
opening credit accounts in victims' names;
-- Impersonating victims via mail and/or email;
-- Impersonating victims in cyber forums and social networks;
-- Stealing benefits that belong to victims; and
-- Committing illegal acts which, in turn, incriminate victims.
The Plaintiff's and Class members' SPI was compromised due to
Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the
failure to protect the SPI of Plaintiff and Class members. Further,
the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals have suffered
injury as a result of Defendant's conduct, the suit asserts.
The Defendant is a medical services provider with approximately 40
offices in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine.
The Defendant also maintains partnerships with several New England
hospitals for its medical services, including Tufts Medical Center,
Emerson Hospital, and the Central Maine Medical Center.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Maselek, Jr., Esq.
McDONOUGH COHEN & MASELEK, LLP
53 State Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 742-6520
Facsimile: (617) 742-1393
E-mail: rmaselek@mcmlawfirm.com
- and -
Carl V. Malmstrom
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 984-0000
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com
- and -
Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10014
Telephone: (212) 545-4669
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: burt@whafh.com
SIEMBRA LLC: Faces Martinez Labor Suit Over Time Shaving Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAN MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class v. SIEMBRA L.L.C., d/b/a ENZO'S PIZZERIA and ROBERTO
COLLADO, Case No. 1:22-cv-03557 (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022) seeks to
to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid wages due to time shaving,
liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action
pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), on behalf
of all non-exempt front-of-house and back-of-house employees
(including but not limited to food preparers, delivery persons,
servers, cashiers, porters, cooks, line-cooks, pizza makers, and
dishwashers) employed by the Defendants on or after the date that
is six years before the filing of the Complaint.
In March 2020, the Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work
simultaneously as a food preparer/pasta preparer for Defendants'
restaurant SIEMBRA L.L.C. d/b/a ENZO'S PIZZERIA located at 81-02
Rockaway Blvd., Ozone Park, New York. The Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants until March 2021. During his employment with Defendants,
Plaintiff was always paid $13 per hour in cash for all hours worked
on a weekly basis. The Plaintiff was not a tipped employee. At all
times Plaintiff's pay rate was below the prevailing minimum wage in
New York City. Class members were paid similar hourly rates, which
were also below the prevailing New York City minimum wage, says the
suit. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1180
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
SIETE BUCKS SPIRITS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Siete Bucks Spirits,
LLC. The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Siete Bucks Spirits,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05032 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Siete Bucks Spirits doing business as Teremana --
https://teremana.com/ -- create a high quality, responsibly sourced
tequila that brings people together.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
SIMPLE GIRL: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simple Girl LLC. The
case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Simple Girl LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-05035 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Simple Girl -- https://www.simplegirl.com/ -- offers sugar-free
organic BBQ sauce and dressings, plus all-natural and gluten-free
seasonings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
SMART OILFIELD: Misclassifies Pump Supervisors, Guthrie et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER GUTHRIE and SHANE NORTH, each individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SMART
OILFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00485-PRW
(W.D. Okla., June 14, 2022) bring this complaint as a collective
action against the Defendant to recover monetary damages as a
result of is alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiffs Guthrie and North were employed by the Defendant as pump
supervisors from December 2021 until March 2022 and from January
2022 until March 2022, respectively.
The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant classified them and other
similarly situated Pump Supervisors as exempt from the overtime
requirements of the FLSA. Although they regularly worked more than
40 hours per workweek throughout their employment with the
Defendant, they were not paid overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours
they worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the Plaintiffs added.
The Plaintiffs seek all unpaid overtime wages for all hours worked
over 40 hours in any week, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and
costs, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Smart Oilfield Solutions, LLC provides rental equipment for oil
wells. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Colby Qualls, 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: colby@sanfordlawfirm.com
SOCLEAN INC: Faces Monaghan Suit Over Misleading Cleaning Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DIANE MONAGHAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SOCLEAN, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01509-RMR-KLM (D.
Colo., June 16, 2022) contends that SoClean falsely represents that
its devices use "no water or chemicals" or "no harsh chemicals" to
clean continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machines, despite
using ozone gas -- a harsh chemical that causes respiratory
problems in humans.
SoClean represents that its devices use the same sanitizing process
found in "hospital sanitizing," however, hospitals cannot and do
not use ozone sanitizers in spaces occupied by patients. SoClean
also claims that separately sold filters convert "activated
oxygen" into "regular oxygen," which is false because SoClean's
filters have no measurable effect on the device's ozone output.
Finally, SoClean falsely claims that its devices are "sealed" such
that "activated oxygen" (i.e., ozone) does not escape the devices,
the suit says.
Since approximately 2012, SoClean manufactured and marketed devices
used to clean continuous positive airway pressure ("CPAP")
machines. SoClean concealed and omitted material information on the
presence and risk of ozone exposure from the SoClean 2 CPAP
Sanitizing Machine, the SoClean 2 Go CPAP Sanitizing machine, and
their predecessor devices ("the SoClean devices"). The SoClean
devices work by generating ozone to sterilize and deodorize CPAP
machines. Ozone is an unstable toxic gas with a pungent
characteristic odor that can kill bacteria and viruses. To be
effective as a germicide, ozone must be present in a concentration
far greater than can be safely tolerated by humans or animals.
According to the complaint, SoClean's marketing materials fail to
disclose that its devices emit ozone, which is a longstanding
requirement of federal law. Instead, SoClean falsely represents
that its devices use "activated oxygen" to clean CPAP machines.
SoClean markets the devices as "safe" and "healthy," which is false
give that they generate toxic ozone gas at levels that
substantially exceed federal regulations.
SoClean's violation of federal regulations as well as its
misrepresentations, concealment, half-truths, and omissions have
allowed it to commandninety-percent of the relevant market. Due to
the nature of SoClean's business, its customers all are ill or
infirm because they have breathing problems for which they are
receiving medical treatment in the form of CPAP therapy. If CPAP
users knew that the SoClean devices generate unsafe levels of toxic
gas, which is then pumped into their CPAP machines and into their
bedrooms, they would find this risk material to their purchasing
decisions. SoClean's representations are designed to mislead
consumers into believing that the machine uses a benign form of
oxygen to clean CPAP machines rather than a harsh gas that is
generally only suitable for commercial sanitization under highly
controlled conditions. These misrepresentations, concealment,
half-truths, and omissions are made more egregious because the
SoClean devices are designed and marketed for use on the consumer's
bedside table and because CPAP users suffer from many symptoms that
ozone exposure exacerbates -- making the falsehoods especially
reprehensible and dangerous, the suit added.
The Plaintiff purchased a SoClean 2 device to clean her ResMed CPAP
machine. Plaintiff Monaghan purchased the SoClean 2 because its
advertising indicated that the SoClean 2 would be easier to clean
her SoClean 2 and it would also be safe to use. She would not have
purchased the SoClean 2 if she knew what she knows now about the
SoClean 2. She also paid more for the SoClean 2 because she
believed the product used activated oxygen and was safe and
healthy.
The Plaintiff would not have purchased the device or paid as much
for it if that information was fully disclosed. Plaintiff was
injured by paying a premium for a device that has no or very little
value -- or whose value was at least less than what she paid
--based on the presence of ozone, the suit further asserts.
SoClean manufactures and sells medical devices that clean
continuous positive airway pressure ("CPAP") machines. Plaintiff is
the owner of a SoClean CPAP cleaning device and has used that
device on a regular basis since she purchased the device at the end
of 2020.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
MASON LLP
5101 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
- and -
Sarah T. Bradshaw, Esq.
Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq.
SHARP LAW FIRM
4820 W. 75th St.
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 901-0505
E-mail: rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com
sbradshaw@midwest-law.com
- and -
Ronald Verdell Johnson, IV, Esq.
Russell L. Johnson, Esq.
DEAKLE-JOHNSON LAW
FIRM, PLLC
P.O. Box 2072
Hattiesburg, MS 39403
Telephone: (601) 544-0631
E-mail: rljohnson@djlawms.com
rvjohsnon@djlawms.com
SOULCYCLE INC: S.D. New York Dismisses Dominguez Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismisses the case, YOVANNY
DOMINGUEZ, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SOULCYCLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19 CV
10815-LTS-RWL (S.D.N.Y.).
The attorneys for the parties have advised the Court that the
putative class action has been or will be settled. Accordingly,
Judge Swain dismisses the action with prejudice as to the named
Plaintiff and without prejudice as to all other Plaintiffs and
without costs to either party, but without prejudice to restoration
of the action to Judge Swain's calendar if settlement is not
achieved within 30 days of the date of the Order.
If a party wishes to reopen the matter or extend the time within
which it may be settled, the party must make a letter application
before this 30-day period expires.
The parties are advised that if they wish the Court to retain
jurisdiction in the matter for purposes of enforcing any settlement
agreement, they will submit the settlement agreement to the Court
to be so ordered.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 15, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/29yb5hnm from Leagle.com.
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Wakefield Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DEBORAH WAKEFIELD, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN ILLINOIS PIZZA,
LLC and NICHOLAS M. BURCH, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01262 (S.D.
Ill., June 14, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
March 2021 to July 2021 as a delivery driver at the Defendants'
Domino's store located in Du Quoin, Illinois.
According to the complaint, the Defendants required her and other
similarly situated delivery drivers to maintain and pay for safe,
legally-operable, and insured automobiles when delivering pizza and
other food items. As a result, they have incurred automobile
expenses while performing duties for the primary benefits of the
Defendants. However, the Defendants had a reimbursement policy that
reimburses its delivery drivers below the IRS business mileage
reimbursement rate and/or much less than a reasonable approximation
of its drivers' automobile expenses. The Plaintiff claims that
because of the Defendants' flawed reimbursement policy, her and
other similarly situated delivery drivers' net wages diminished
beneath the federal minimum wage requirements, says the suit.
Southern Illinois Pizza, LLC operates numerous Domino's Pizza
franchise stores. Nicholas M. Burch is an owner and director of the
Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katherine Serrano, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
400 N. St. Paul St., Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel: (214) 210-7493
Fax: (469) 399-1070
E-mail: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com
SPICE LAB: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Spice Lab. The
case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The Spice Lab, Case No.
1:22-cv-05036 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Spice Lab -- https://spices.com/ -- is a woman-owned and
family-run business specializing in seasoning blends, premium
organic spices, salts and gourmet gifts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
T-MOBILE USA: Faces Lawsuit for Shutting Down Sprint's Networks
---------------------------------------------------------------
lawstreetmedia.com reports that a consumer filed a class-action
lawsuit in the Western District of Washington against T-Mobile USA,
Inc. for effectively making numerous types of phones unusable by
shutting down older networks and replacing them with 5G towers,
which older phones cannot support.
Due to the previous merger between Sprint and T-Mobile, T-Mobile
shut down Sprint's 5G networks, which left approximately 75,000 5G
phones to only connect to 4G and lower networks across the country
unless they paid to switch their plans to T-Mobile, which
significantly reduced download speeds from 20 gigabytes per second
down to 100 megabytes per second, the complaint states.
Additionally, according to the complaint, numerous phones became
completely unusable as T-Mobile shut down both Sprint and
T-Mobile's 3G and LTE networks leaving the "Samsung Galaxy S10 5G,
LG V50 ThinQ 5G, HTC 5G Hub, OnePlus 7 Pro 5G, and various tablets,
security systems, and other devices" worthless, forcing customers
to buy new phones.
The plaintiff and putative class argue that "selling 5G data plans
[. . . ] with a limited shelf life and Class Devices unable to
connect to existing 5G and other networks is a fraud on consumers."
Due to T-Mobile's "unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent business
practices," the plaintiff and proposed class have suffered an
"ascertainable" loss of money, property and value which the
defendants allegedly knew would happen to a large contingent of
their customers. T-Mobile allegedly concealed this information
since it knew "no reasonable consumer expects to spend more for a
device whose advertised and differentiating features will be
rendered useless in a few months' time."
As a result, the plaintiff is suing on the counts of breach of
express and implied warranty, breach of warranty under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violations of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, fraud and unjust enrichment.
The plaintiff seeks class certification; the appointment of the
plaintiff as class representative; actual, general, special,
incidental, statutory, punitive, and consequential damages;
injunctive and declaratory relief; pre- and post-judgment interest;
attorney's fees and costs; and other relief. [GN]
TALKING RAIN: Soft Drinks Contain Artificial Flavoring, Tatum Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
PEGGY TATUM on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. TALKING RAIN BEVERAGE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-03525
(N.D. Cal., June 15, 2022) is a national consumer class action for
the violation of state consumer protection, unfair competition, and
false advertising statutes, and for common-law breach of
warranties, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud by omission.
The Defendant manufactures, labels, distributes, advertises, and
sells the "Sparkling Ice" line of soft drinks including but not
limited to "Classic Sparkling Ice" and "Sparkling Ice + Caffeine."
"Classic Sparkling Ice" and "Sparkling Ice + Caffeine" products are
offered in at least 23 different flavor varieties. All of these
varieties are labeled as premium, naturally-flavored beverages 18
containing only natural flavors.
According to the complaint, at least fifteen of these (the
"Products"), however, contain undisclosed artificial flavoring. The
Products' packaging, labeling, and advertising expressly represent
that these beverages are made from "natural flavors," that the
flavors are "sourced from nature," and that the drinks' "colors and
flavors [are] from natural sources."
These representations are false. The Products all contain
undisclosed artificial flavoring. Federal regulations and state
consumer protection law require any food or beverage product that
contains an artificial flavor to prominently disclose this fact on
the product's front- and back-labels, the suit says.
The Products are also misbranded under the federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act and therefore unlawful to sell anywhere in the United
States. The Defendant willfully conceals from consumers the fact
that these Products contain artificial flavoring chemicals that
simulate, resemble, and reinforce the Products' claimed natural
flavors, the suit alleges.
Twelve of the fifteen Products include "malic acid" as either the
first or second ingredient by weight after water. The "malic acid"
Defendant puts in its Products is an artificial compound called
dl-malic acid. Artificial dl-malic acid is a synthetic
petrochemical compound synthesized from benzene or butane in a
chemical manufacturing process involving highly toxic intermediates
or byproducts. Dl-malic acid does not occur in nature, added the
suit.
Plaintiff Tatum is a resident and citizen of California and
purchased the Products multiple times in Contra Costa County,
California, for personal and household consumption.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin F. Ruf, Esq.
Marc L. Godino, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: kruf@glancylaw.com
mgodino@glancylaw.com
- and -
David Elliot, Esq.
Michael Dobbs, Esq.
ELLIOT LAW OFFICE PC
2028 3rd Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 468-4865
TATE LEGACY: Howard Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Tonya Howard and Ebony Johnson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TATE LEGACY INCORPORATED and DARLENE
TATE, Case No. 1:22-cv-02817 (N.D. Ill., May 27, 2022), is brought
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the payment provisions of
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and to seek
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, costs,
and a reasonable attorneys' fee, as a result of the Defendants'
policy and practice of failing to pay the Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated sufficient wages under the FLSA and the IMWL
within the applicable statutory limitations period.
The Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs either an hourly rate or a
salary. The Plaintiffs were not paid a weekly minimum guaranty. The
Plaintiffs regularly or occasionally worked over 40 hours in a
week. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs an overtime rate for
hours worked over 40 in a week. The Defendant did not provide a
method by which Plaintiffs and other Tax Preparers could track
their time. The Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff
and other Tax
Preparers regularly or occasionally worked hours over 40 each week.
The Defendant has deprived Plaintiff and other Tax Preparers of
sufficient wages for all hours worked. The Defendant knew or showed
reckless disregard for whether its actions violated the FLSA, the
IMWL and the IWPCA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as Tax Preparers.
The Defendants own and operate a tax preparation business.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
Colby Qualls, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
colby@sanfordlawfirm.com
TERRAFORM LABS: Faces Securities Suit for Misleading Investors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nikhilesh De at coindesk.com reports that an Illinois resident sued
Terraform Labs, its founder Do Kwon and several VC firms that make
up the Luna Foundation Guard (LFG) on claims the defendants
violated federal securities laws and misled investors.
The plaintiff, Nick Patterson, filed a lawsuit seeking class action
status in the Northern District of California in the hopes of
recouping losses and any injunctive or punitive fees from a jury
trial. Patterson alleged both California state and federal law
violations against the defendants.
The plaintiff said the "Terra Tokens," (a catchall term for both
UST, LUNA and other tokens in the ecosystem) resembled securities,
even if investors may not have been able to recognize them as such,
pointing to how Terraform Labs and the VCs behind the LFG marketed
the project. LUNA and UST both collapsed in dramatic fashion last
month after the stablecoin lost its peg. An attempt to relaunch
LUNA has so far failed to bring investors back to the project.
The filing, which includes screenshots from Twitter, heavily quotes
Kwon and his dismissive reactions to other parties who claimed UST
faced a depegging risk.
In addition to Terraform Labs and Do Kwon, the suit lists as
defendants Definance Capital/ Definance Technologies Oy, GSR/GSR
Markets Limited, Jump Crypto, Jump Trading LLC, Nicholas Platias,
Republic Capital, Republic Maximal LLC, Three Arrows Capital, Pte.
Ltd. and Tribe Capital.
Three Arrows Capital is facing financial woes of its own. [GN]
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces $2 Billion Class Action Over Defective Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Day at Daily Mail Australia reports that Toyota could be
forced to pay customers more than $2 billion after 260,000
Australian were found to be affected by defective vehicles.
Customers who bought a Prado, HiLux, or Fortuner model from the
Japanese manufacturer in 2015 to 2020 could be eligible for
compensation.
Motorists complained their brand-new vehicles were emitting
foul-smelling white smoke and exhaust caused by faulty diesel
particulate filters.
They also complained the vehicle required repeated inspections,
servicing, and repairs as well as costing drivers more due to
increased fuel consumption.
Toyota owners stand to receive the approximated reduction in value
of each vehicle at the time it was sold, which is 17.5 per cent of
the average retail price, plus an additional 10 per cent for excess
GST.
Owners are eligible if they bought a diesel Toyota Prado, HiLux, or
Fortuner between October 1, 2015, and April 23, 2020, and did not
sell it during that time.
Australian law firm Gilbert + Tobin brought a class action lawsuit
against the manufacturer in 2019 on behalf of the people who owned
the defective models.
The Federal Court of Australia ruled against Toyota in April,
finding the manufacturer engaged in 'misleading' conduct in
marketing the cars.
The law firm will start contacting eligible owners by phone, text
message, and post, to invite them register their interest for
thousands in compensation.
The lead applicant of the class action, Ken Williams, has already
been awarded $18,000 in compensation for the faulty Prado he bought
in 2016.
Less than a year later, the Queensland father realised he had been
sold a 'dud'.
Foul-smelling white smoke began pouring out from the vehicle while
he was stopped at a set of traffic lights, scaring him and his
young children.
Mr Williams told News Corp he went back to the dealership 12 times
since the 'horrendous' moment but was yet to see any improvement.
'Having the judgment in my favour was good for me but also for
hundreds of thousands of other people to see they can come forward
and be compensated for all the pain and suffering,' he said of the
Federal Court judgement.
Gilbert + Tobin partner Matt Mackenzie described the class action
as 'significant' due to the Federal Court moving to award the
damages on an aggregate basis.
The last order of this kind was made in 1998, when proceedings were
commenced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
The total amount of damages to be paid by Toyota is yet to be
decided and will depend on how many drivers take part in the class
action.
Estimates predict the manufacturer will be forced to pay more than
$2 billion.
Owners who register for compensation and are deemed eligible will
be reimbursed through a court-supervised distribution scheme.
Toyota lodged an appeal in the Federal Court of Australia,
questioning the 'factual and legal basis for the award of damages'.
The manufacturer apologised to affected customers and said it was
committed to assisting drivers with faulty diesel particulate
filters.
'At the same time, we understand some customers have experienced
inconvenience and discomfort from this issue. For this we
apologise,' it said.
'We have worked continuously since becoming aware of DPF concerns
on an effective resolution for affected customers.
'At every step, we have implemented customer focused and
technically grounded remedies to resolve customers' concerns.' [GN]
TRINET HR: Huang, et al., Directed to File Class Cert Reply Brief
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Huang et al., v. TriNet HR III, Inc., et al., Case No.
8:20-cv-02293 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Virginia M. Hernandez
Covington entered an order on motion for leave to file document:
-- The Plaintiffs may file a reply brief in support of their
class-certification motion.
-- The reply brief shall not exceed five pages in length and
is due July 6, 2022.
The nature of suit Employee Retirement Income Security Act
involving employee benefits.
TriNet provides human resource services.[CC]
TRUEBLUE INC: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of TrueBlue, Inc. (NYSE: TBI) resulting from
allegations that TrueBlue may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased TrueBlue securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7019 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On June 15, 2022, during trading hours,
TrueBlue issued a press release "announc[ing] . . . that Patrick
Beharelle has resigned as Chief Executive Officer and as a member
of the Board of Directors of TrueBlue, effective June 14, 2022."
The Company stated that "Mr. Beharelle's resignation follows an
investigation, led by outside counsel, into allegations regarding
his conduct. Based on the investigation's findings, the Board of
Directors determined that he had engaged in behaviors that violated
TrueBlue's policies and Code of Conduct. Mr. Beharelle's conduct in
question was not related to financial controls, financial
statements, or business performance."
On this news, TrueBlue's stock price fell $1.06 per share, or 5%,
to close at $18.55 per share on June 15, 2022.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Sued Over Misleading Performance Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that Tupperware Brands Corporation and
its top executives made "materially false and misleading"
statements about its business, operations and compliance policies,
a new federal securities class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Michael Edge claims Tupperware, along with its president
and CEO Miguel Fernandeaz and CFO and COO Cassandra Harris, failed
to disclose that it was "facing significant challenges" in
maintaining its earnings and sales.
Edge claims further that Tupperware's full-year guidance for 2022
was "unrealistic" and/or "unsustainable," which, when revealed,
would likely have a "material negative impact" on the company's
financial condition.
"As a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times," the Tupperware class action
states.
Tupperware announced its financial results from the first quarter
of 2022 on May 4, revealing, among other things, that its adjusted
earnings from continued operations and net sales fell "well short
of consensus estimates," according to the Tupperware class action.
Tupperware class action says company places blame for
'less-than-expected' results on Russia, Ukraine war
Edge claims Tupperware initially placed the blame for its
less-than-expected financial results on the war between Russia and
Ukraine; however, he argues the company later admitted Russia and
Ukraine only make up 2% of its revenue.
Upon news of Tupperware's first quarter financial results,
meanwhile, the company's stock price dropped by around 32% on May
4, according to the Tupperware class action.
"As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages," the Tupperware class action
states.
Edge claims Tupperware, Fernandez and Harris violate the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. He demands a jury trial and requests damages
for himself and all class members.
He wants to represent a nationwide class of investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired Tupperware securities between Nov. 3, 2021,
and May 3, 2022, and were damaged "upon the revelation of the
alleged corrective disclosures." [GN]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Malik Sues Over Breach of Employment Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
Soha Malik, an individual, and on behalf of all aggrieved employees
and the State of California v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; RUSSELL TOBIN AND ASSOCIATES LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and DOES 1-3, inclusive, Case No. CGC-22-599004
(Cal. Super. Ct., May 1, 2022), is brought seeking to recover
damages arising from Defendants' unjustified and arbitrary breach
of her fixed term employment contract, unlawful retaliation for
raising concerns that Uber was violating the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, and several wage and hour violations.
The Plaintiff asked Ms. Owyand and Uber's IT department to
reimburse her for the expenses that she had incurred to reasonably
perform her job duties, but both refused to reimburse her for any
of her expenses. The Plaintiff also asked her contact at RTA,
Malia, to receive reimbursement for her work related expenses in
January 2021, but RTA did not reimburse Plaintiff. At no point did
Defendants reimburse Plaintiff for any of the expenses she incurred
to reasonably perform her job duties. Plaintiff also did not accrue
any paid sick leave from August 2020 through November 2020 and from
December 2020 through January 2021. Plaintiff also was not
permitted to carry over any paid sick leave that she accrued in
2020 to the new calendar year. As a result, Plaintiff's wage
statements are inaccurate because they fail to accurately reflect
Plaintiff's accrued paid sick time and paid time off (PTO).
On April 12, 2021, the Plaintiff gave written notice by certified
mail to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and all
the Defendants of the specific provisions of the Labor Code alleged
to have been violated, which also included the facts and theories
to support the alleged violations. On July 1, 2021, Plaintiff
received Notice of Commencement of Investigation and Statutory
Tolling Pursuant to Labor Code Section 90.6 (July 1, 2021 Notice)
from the LWDA based on an understanding that the Plaintiffs' Labor
Code violations related to Uber and Uber Eats drivers. On November
5, 2021, the Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a Tolling
Agreement to toll all applicable statute of limitations for all
claims alleged in this Complaint not already tolled pursuant to the
LWDA's July 1, 2021 Notice from November 5, 2021 through and
including March 7, 2022.
On November 18, 2021, Plaintiff gave written amended notice by
certified mail to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and
all the Defendants clarifying that the Plaintiff's claims related
to Uber LERT Specialists and not Uber or Uber Eats drivers. More
than 65 days have elapsed since Plaintiff provided written amended
notice of the claims without the LWDA assuming jurisdiction over
the claims alleged. Accordingly, Plaintiff has fully satisfied her
administrative prerequisites to file suit under PAGA. Furthermore,
on February 18, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a
subsequent Tolling Agreement to toll all applicable statute of
limitations for all claims alleged in this Complaint including all
claims under PAGA from May 5, 2021 through and including April 4,
2022.
In January 2021, the Plaintiff continued to work at Uber on a full
time basis and she had a positive job performance discussion with
Uber and RTA about two weeks into the New Year. During Plaintiff's
employment with Defendants, no one ever raised any concerns to her
that she was willfully breaching any of her duties, habitually
neglecting her duties, or incapable of performing her duties.
Then--inexplicably--Defendants terminated Plaintiff's contract
effective as of January 21, 2021. As a result of the sudden
termination of the contract, Plaintiff was extremely distraught and
embarrassed as she frantically scrambled to save her lease
agreement at her current apartment, cancel the agreement with the
new apartment, has had to pay out of pocket for approximately
$2,635 for health and dental care, has had to jump through hoops
attempting to obtain unemployment benefits from a clogged system,
and has had to search for alternative employment in the midst of a
novel pandemic that has led to unprecedented unemployment rates in
California, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was offered a full-time non-exempt position of a Law
Enforcement Response Team Specialist at Uber for four months by the
Defendant.
RTA is a staffing agency that locates and hires employees for
companies including Uber, which is a mobility-as-a-service
provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dorothy C Yamamoto, Esq.
Gregory R Michael, Esq.
MICHAEL YAMAMOTO LLP
1400 Shattuck Ave., #412
Berkeley, CA 94709
Phone: 510.296.5600
Fax: 510.296.5600
Email: dyamamoto@myllp.law
gmichael@myllp.law
UNILEVER PLC: Portnoy Law Discloses Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises Unilever (NYSE: UL) investors that a
class action has been filed on behalf of investors. Unilever
investors that lost money on their investment are encouraged to
contact Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by
phone 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss
their legal rights, or click here to join the case via
www.portnoylaw.com. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a
complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for
pursuing claims to recover their losses.
According to the complaint, in 2000, Ben & Jerry's sold the company
to Unilever for $326 million. In July 2020, Ben & Jerry's
independent board passed a resolution to end sales of Ben & Jerry's
products in areas that the Ben & Jerry's Board considers to be
Palestinian territories illegally occupied by Israel. However, Ben
& Jerry's CEO did not "operationalize" the resolution immediately.
On July 19, 2021, Unilever "operationalized" the Ben & Jerry's
Board's resolution to boycott Israel. On that day, Ben & Jerry's
announced that, upon the expiration of the current licensing
agreement by which its products had been distributed in Israel for
decades, it would end sales of its ice cream in "Occupied
Palestinian Territory" but purportedly continue to sell its
products in Israel. However, in a separate response reported by NBC
News, the Ben & Jerry's Board disputed that Ben & Jerry's would
remain in Israel and that Unilever had any authority to make such a
promise.
The class action alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that in July 2020, Ben & Jerry's board passed a resolution
to end sales of its ice cream in "Occupied Palestinian Territory"
as well as the risks attendant to the board's decision.
Additionally, Unilever's description of its legal risks was
materially false and misleading because Unilever acknowledged that
complying with all applicable laws and regulations was important
but omitted discussing Ben & Jerry's boycott decision, which risked
adverse governmental actions for violations of laws, executive
orders, or resolutions aimed at discouraging boycotts, divestment,
and sanctions of Israel adopted by 35 U.S. states ("Anti-BDS
Legislation").
In response to the boycott, Texas and Florida announced it was
examining Ben & Jerry's action in connection with the states'
Anti-BDS Legislation, with Florida's CFO stating in a letter to Ben
& Jerry's CEO that refusal to do business in Israel will result in
Ben & Jerry's being placed on the Scrutinized Companies that
Boycott Israel list and that Florida would then be prohibited from
investing in Ben & Jerry's or Unilever. On this news, the price of
Unilever ADRs closed down over 5%.
Ultimately, the states of New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas,
Illinois, Colorado, and Arizona announced decisions to divest their
pension fund investments in Unilever due to violations of their
Anti-BDS Legislation.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner
has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.[GN]
UNILEVER PLC: Robbins LLP Reminds of August 15 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The Class: Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP informs
investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Unilever
(NYSE: UL) American Depository Receipts (ADRs) September 2, 2020
and July 21, 2021, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Unilever is one of the world's largest consumer goods
companies.
If you would like more information about Unilever plc's misconduct,
click https://robbinsllp.com/unilever-plc-bw/.
What is this Case About: Unilever plc (UL) Failed to Disclose its
Resolution to End Sales of its Ice Cream in "Occupied Palestinian
Territory" and the Risks Associated with the Board's Decision
According to the complaint, in 2000, Ben & Jerry's sold the company
to Unilever for $326 million. In July 2020, Ben & Jerry's
independent board passed a resolution to end sales of Ben & Jerry's
products in areas that the Ben & Jerry's Board considers to be
Palestinian territories illegally occupied by Israel. However, Ben
& Jerry's CEO did not "operationalize" the resolution immediately.
On July 19, 2021, Unilever "operationalized" the Ben & Jerry's
Board's resolution to boycott Israel. On that day, Ben & Jerry's
announced that, upon the expiration of the current licensing
agreement by which its products had been distributed in Israel for
decades, it would end sales of its ice cream in "Occupied
Palestinian Territory" but purportedly continue to sell its
products in Israel. However, in a separate response reported by NBC
News, the Ben & Jerry's Board disputed that Ben & Jerry's would
remain in Israel and that Unilever had any authority to make such a
promise.
The class action alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that in July 2020, Ben & Jerry's board passed a resolution
to end sales of its ice cream in "Occupied Palestinian Territory"
as well as the risks attendant to the board's decision.
Additionally, Unilever's description of its legal risks was
materially false and misleading because Unilever acknowledged that
complying with all applicable laws and regulations was important
but omitted discussing Ben & Jerry's boycott decision, which risked
adverse governmental actions for violations of laws, executive
orders, or resolutions aimed at discouraging boycotts, divestment,
and sanctions of Israel adopted by 35 U.S. states ("Anti-BDS
Legislation").
In response to the boycott, Texas and Florida announced it was
examining Ben & Jerry's action in connection with the states'
Anti-BDS Legislation, with Florida's CFO stating in a letter to Ben
& Jerry's CEO that refusal to do business in Israel will result in
Ben & Jerry's being placed on the Scrutinized Companies that
Boycott Israel list and that Florida would then be prohibited from
investing in Ben & Jerry's or Unilever. On this news, the price of
Unilever ADRs closed down over 5%.
Ultimately, the states of New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas,
Illinois, Colorado, and Arizona announced decisions to divest their
pension fund investments in Unilever due to violations of their
Anti-BDS Legislation.
Next Steps: If you acquired your shares of Unilever plc ADRs
between September 2, 2020 and July 21, 2021, you have until August
15, 2022, to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the
class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have
to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.[GN]
UNION PACIFIC: Waldschmidt ADA Suit Moved From D. Colo. to D. Neb.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHARLES WALDSCHMIDT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., Case
No. 1:20-cv-03808, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nebraska on June 14, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Nebraska assigned Case No.
8:22-cv-00210-JFB-CRZ to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged discrimination against
its hearing-impaired employees in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Union Pacific Railroad Co. is a railroad company, headquartered in
Omaha, Nebraska. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq.
THE MOODY LAW FIRM, INC.
500 Crawford St., Suite 200
Portsmouth, VA 23704
Telephone: (757) 393-4093
Facsimile: (757) 397-7257
E-mail: nthompson@moodyrrlaw.com
- and –
Adam W. Hansen, Esq.
APOLLO LAW LLC
333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 927-2969
E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Settles Data Breach Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
natlawreview.com reports that the University of Pittsburgh Medical
Center (UPMC) recently settled a data breach class action for
$450,000 stemming from a 2020 data breach that led to the
compromise of about 36,000 UPMC patients.
UPMC is a Pennsylvania medical center and medical insurer. From
April to June 2020, UPMC's legal counsel, Charles J. Hilton PC,
suffered a data breach that compromised its email accounts. As a
result, UPMC information was also compromised, including patient
names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, financial account
numbers, identification numbers, signatures, medical records, and
insurance information.
UPMC notified the affected patients in December 2020. The complaint
alleges that UPMC had a duty to protect the patient data and failed
to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to do so. The lead
plaintiff in the case alleged that after the incident occurred, he
had a fraudulent Amazon credit card opened up in his name. He also
claims that this led to significant time spent to mitigate the
issue. Class members may receive up to $250 in cash payments for
documented expenditures related to this incident, and up to $2,500
for documented identity theft loses or fraudulent charges, as well
as up to $30 for undocumented time spent. All class members will
also receive 12 months of free credit monitoring. [GN]
VANGUARD CHESTER: Richardson Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vanguard Chester
Funds, et al. The case is styled as Mary Richardson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vanguard Chester
Funds, Mortimer J. Buckley, Christine M. Buchanan, John E. Schadl,
Emerson U. Fullwood, Amy Gutmann, F. Joseph Loughrey, Mark
Loughridge, Scott C. Malpass, Deanna Mulligan, Andre F. Perold,
Sarah Bloom Raskin, Peter F. Volanakis, The Vanguard Group, Inc.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02091-ER (E.D. Pa., May 27, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
The Vanguard Group, Inc. -- https://vanguard.com/ -- is an American
registered investment advisor based in Malvern, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: 212/545-4600
Facsimile: 212/545-4653
Email: rifkin@whafh.com
VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Abbott Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brendan Abbott, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. doing
business as: VPX Sports, Does 1 through 10, Case No. 22SL-CC02272
was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on
May 31, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-00587-CDP to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., doing business as VPX Sports, provides
sports and energy beverages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel F. Harvath, Esq.
HARVATH LAW GROUP LLC
75 W. Lockwood, Suite 1
St. Louis, MO 63119
Phone: (314) 550-3717
Email: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael T. Crabb, Esq.
KUCKELMAN AND TORLINE
10740 Nall, Suite 250
Overland Park, KS 66211
Phone: (913) 951-5651
Fax: (913) 948-8611
Email: mcrabb@ktk-law.com
VYERA PHARMACEUTICALS: $1.5MM in Attys.' Fees Awarded in BCBSM Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BCBSM, INC., d/b/a BLUE CROSS and BLUE SHIELD OF
MINNESOTA, on behalf of itself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. VYERA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, PHOENIXUS AG, MARTIN
SHKRELI, and KEVIN MULLEADY, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-1884-DLC
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Denise L. Cote of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York grants Lead Counsel Robins Kaplan
LLP's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Payment of Litigation
Expenses, and Incentive Award for Plaintiff.
The Court held a Fairness Hearing on June 17, 2022.
After considering the six factors set forth in Goldberger v.
Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43, 50 (2d Cir. 2000), Judge Cote
awards the Lead Counsel $1.5 million in attorneys' fees from the
$7.56 million that has been paid into the Class Settlement Fund to
date.
To the extent additional contingent settlement payments are paid
into the Class Settlement Fund in the future, the Lead Counsel may
request additional attorneys' fees of up to 10% of any additional
funds received. The Court reserves exclusive jurisdiction over any
additional requests for attorneys' fees in the litigation.
Judge Cote also grants the Lead Counsel's request to be reimbursed
for $294,055 in litigation expenses from the Class Settlement Fund,
which includes the $52,500 in anticipated future expenses. As
agreed to in the Settlement Agreement and previously ordered by the
Court, the Lead Counsel may continue to pay from the Class
Settlement Fund the actual costs of notice, settlement
administration, and taxes without further order of the Court.
Lastly, Judge Cote grants a $50,000 incentive award to Plaintiff
BCBSM in recognition of the time and resources that it devoted to
the case on behalf of the Settlement Class. The Lead Counsel will
direct $50,000 to be paid from the Class Settlement Fund to the
Plaintiff.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 17, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/576npv7w from Leagle.com.
VYERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Judgment & Order Entered in BCBSM Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise L. Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal
in the case, BCBSM, INC., d/b/a BLUE CROSS and BLUE SHIELD OF
MINNESOTA, on behalf of itself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. VYERA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, PHOENIXUS AG, MARTIN
SHKRELI, and KEVIN MULLEADY, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-1884-DLC
(S.D.N.Y.).
The matter came before the Court at a hearing on June 17, 2022 upon
Plaintiff BCBSM's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement.
On Feb. 10, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement
and certified the following Settlement Class: All entities that,
for consumption by their members, employees, insureds,
participants, or beneficiaries, and not for resale, indirectly
purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of
the purchase price of Daraprim from Aug. 7, 2015 through Jan. 28,
2022.
The Court also appointed the Plaintiff as the representative of the
Settlement Class, appointed Kellie Lerner and Benjamin Steinberg as
the Settlement Class Counsel, and appointed A.B. Data as the Notice
Provider and Claims Administrator. It further approved the proposed
forms and methods of providing notice to the Settlement Class (the
"Notice Plan") and the proposed plan of allocating settlement funds
to the Settlement Class (the "Plan of Allocation").
Having held the Fairness Hearing and considered all papers filed
and proceedings related thereto, Judge Cote grants final approval
to the Jan. 28, 2022 Settlement Agreement. She finds that the
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, serves the best
interests of the Settlement Class Members, and complies with all
applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
For the same reasons set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order,
Judge Cote continues to find that, in connection with and solely
for purposes of the Settlement, the Settlement Class satisfies the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). The Settlement Class will
remain certified for purposes of the Settlement.
Judge Cote finds that the executed Notice Plan satisfies the
requirements of Rule 23(e)(1) and due process. Five entities have
validly requested to be excluded from the Settlement Class. The
Opt-Outs are therefore excluded from the Settlement Class for all
purposes, are not bound by the Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal, and may not make any claim to, or receive any benefit
from, the Settlement.
Pursuant to the terms and definitions used in the Settlement
Agreement, the Action and all Released Claims are dismissed with
prejudice and released against the Releasees in their entirety. The
Releasors will be deemed to have released and forever discharged
the Released Claims against the Releasees, and will be forever
enjoined from prosecuting the Released Claims against the
Releasees. The Settling Parties are to bear their own costs, except
as otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreement and the orders of
the Court.
Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal for purposes of appeal, the Court reserves exclusive
jurisdiction over the Settlement, the Settlement Agreement, the
related Collateral Assignment and Security Agreement dated Feb. 28,
2022, and all other Settlement-related agreements, including the
administration, consummation, and enforcement of each.
The Settling Parties will consummate the Settlement according to
the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Plan of Allocation.
If necessary, the Settling Parties may agree to reasonable
extensions of time to carry out provisions of the Settlement
Agreement without further order of the Court.
Once all timely settlement claims have been processed, the Claims
Administrator will distribute the money paid into the Class
Settlement Fund to Settlement Class Members less deductions made
for taxes, settlement administration expenses, attorneys' fees,
litigation costs, incentive awards, and any other charges
authorized by the Court ("Net Settlement Funds") in accordance with
the Plan of Allocation.
To the extent the Corporate Defendants make additional contingent
payments into the Class Settlement Fund after the first wave of
settlement funds is distributed, additional Net Settlement Funds
will be distributed to the Settlement Class in accordance with the
Plan of Allocation on a schedule intended to reduce administration
costs and maximize the Settlement Class' recovery.
There is no just reason for delay in the entry of the Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal. The Clerk of the Court is
respectfully directed to enter the Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 17, 2022 Final Judgment &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdzzv4na from
Leagle.com.
VYSTAR CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in Employees' Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vystar Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2022, that in January 2022, the
parties settled a class action filed on May 21, 2021 by one former
and one current employee in the Worcester District Court.
The Plaintiffs allege that the company failed to pay them and other
salespeople who were paid on a commission-only basis overtime pay
at a rate of least 1.5 times the basic minimum wage or premium pay
(also at 1.5 times the basic minimum wage) for hours they worked on
Sundays.
Vystar Corporation, based in Massachusetts, uses patented
technology to produces a line of innovative air purifiers.
VYSTAR CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in LaChapelle Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Vystar Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2022, that the parties in a
class action complaint against the president of the company, Steve
Rotman, settled with the plaintiffs, Robert LaChapelle and certain
other employees, each on an individual basis, for a de minimus
amount where plaintiffs' counsel then filed a Stipulation of
Dismissal of their complaint with prejudice.
On March 13, 2020, Robert LaChapelle, a former employee of Rotmans
Furniture, the Company's majority-owned subsidiary, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint against Rotmans and two of its prior owners (including
Steve Rotman, President of the Company) in the Worcester Superior
Court alleging non-payment of overtime pay and Sunday premium pay
pursuant to the Massachusetts Blue Laws (Ch. 136), the
Massachusetts Overtime Law (Chapter 151, section 1A), and the
Massachusetts Payment of Wages Law (Chapter 149 sections 148 and
150)
Specifically, LaChapelle has alleged that Rotmans failed to pay him
and other salespeople who were paid on a commission-only basis
overtime pay at a rate of least 1.5 times the basic minimum wage or
premium pay (also at 1.5 times the basic minimum wage) for hours
they worked on Sundays. The parties settled with the named
plaintiffs, Robert LaChapelle and certain other employees, each on
an individual basis, for a de minimus amount which was paid in
March 2021. Plaintiffs' counsel then filed a Stipulation of
Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice.
Vystar Corporation, based in Massachusetts, uses patented
technology to produces a line of innovative air purifiers.
WAFFLE HOUSE: Mason Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Waffle House, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Shakeema Mason, on behalf of herself
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Waffle House,
Inc., WH Capital, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-01956 (S.D. Tex., June 15,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
WH Capital, L.L.C., doing business as Waffle House --
https://www.wafflehouse.com/ -- is an American restaurant chain
with 2,100 locations in 25 states in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Donny J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 523-0001
Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
WARNER MUSIC: Fails to Account Digital Streaming Income, Hall Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN HALL, an individual; and LANCE HOPPEN, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP., a
Delaware Corporation; WARNER MUSIC INC., a Delaware Corporation;
and WARNER RECORDS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
3:22-cv-00457 (M.D. Tenn., June 16, 2022) is a nationwide class
action against the Defendants for their failure to properly account
to Plaintiffs and Class Members for income derived from the
exploitation of their works internationally via digital streaming.
The Plaintiffs seek injunctive, declaratory and/or monetary relief
against the Defendants for their unlawful conduct of unilaterally
and unlawfully accounting to and paying Plaintiffs and Class
Members less than the full amount owed to them in connection with
the exploitation of their works.
The Plaintiffs are musician, recording artists, and performing
artists who were a member of Orleans.
Warner Records (WR) is a record label that obtained the rights to
exploit the artistic works of Plaintiffs and Class Members in
exchange for the payment of money to these individuals and entities
as required by standard contracts ("Compensation Agreements").
The terms of the Compensation Agreements between the Defendants and
Plaintiffs and Class Members contain the same, if not identical,
language regarding the method of accounting for and paying the
artists their share of the revenues based on all the revenue
received by Defendants. However, these Agreements presumed that the
record labels' main business was, and would always be, the sale of
phonorecords embodying the signatory artists' performances, which
formerly constituted the virtual entirety of the recordings'
monetary earnings. Accordingly, these Agreements neither addressed
nor contemplated the possibility of "digitally streaming" music
directly to consumers or the royalties to be paid, says the suit.
While this omission did not pose an issue when such technology was
nascent, digital streaming now accounts for 83% of all recorded
music consumption, compared to physical phonorecords, which
accounts for 11%. 1 In other words, the Defendants are now
administering large swaths of Agreements that are no longer
supported by their original consideration, and to leave them as
such would have meant risking both a public relations crisis and a
wave of artists seeking to rescind their depreciated Agreements and
reclaim their works. In an attempt to quietly address this ticking
time bomb, Defendants began issuing payments to Plaintiffs and
Class Members for the digital streaming of their recordings, with
written statements issued by WMG indicating the ostensible royalty
rate (i.e., "50.0," meaning 50%) at which the payments were
calculated, the suit added.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
Bobby Pouya, Esq.
Matthew A. Pearson, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
bpouya@pswlaw.com
mapearson@pswlaw.com
- and -
Neville L. Johnson, Esq.
Douglas L. Johnson, Esq.
Daniel B. Lifschitz, Esq.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP
439 North Canon Drive, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 975-1080
Facsimile: (310) 975-1095
E-mail: njohnson@jjllplaw.com
djohnson@jjllplaw.com
dlifschitz@jjllplaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
Nicole Ramirez, Esq.
KIESEL LAW LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 854-4444
Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law
ramirez@kiesel.law
- and -
John J. Griffin, Esq.
Michael A. Johnson, Esq.
KAY GRIFFIN PLLC
222 Second Ave. North, Suite 340M
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 742-4800
Facsimile: (615) 742-4801
E-mail: john.griffin@kaygriffin.com
mjohnson@kaygriffin.com
WEST MONROE: Sanford Named Interim Class Counsel in Daly Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, MATTHEW DALY, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEST MONROE PARTNERS,
INC., et al., Defendants. NATHAN A. ULERY, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ronald A. Guzman
WEST MONROE PARTNERS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 21 C
06805, 22 C 781 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Ronald A. Guzman of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, grants Daly's motion for appointment of interim counsel
and denies Ulery's motion for appointment of counsel.
I. Introduction
The Court grants Daly's motion for appointment of interim counsel
and appoints Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP as interim class counsel
and Matthew Singer as local counsel. It denies Ulery's motion to
appoint interim class counsel.
The Interim class counsel will file a consolidated amended
complaint by July 8, 2022. The Defendants will answer or otherwise
plead to the consolidated amended complaint by July 29, 2022.
In the event the Defendants move to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint, they will make every effort possible to file a
consolidated motion. If they require additional pages, they will
seek leave of Court to file an enlarged brief well ahead of the
responsive-pleading deadline.
The Court directs the parties to confer, no later than July 11,
2022, to discuss the nature and bases of their claims and defenses
and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the
case. They will also discuss deadlines for Rule 26(a)(1)
disclosures and a proposed discovery plan. A written initial status
report and proposed discovery plan will be filed no later than July
25, 2022.
Plaintiff Daly is responsible for initiating such a meeting, and
all lead counsel for all parties are required to participate.
Failure or refusal to participate in such a meeting or to cooperate
in the preparation of the written report may constitute a basis for
sanctions. In-person status hearing set for July 28, 2022 at 11:00
a.m.
II. Background
West Monroe, a private company, adopted an Employee Stock Ownership
Plan in 2012. The Plan had approximately 1,500 members by 2021. The
Plaintiffs in the two related cases, Daly and Ulery, filed
complaints alleging generally that they and similarly situated
individuals were forced in September 2021 to sell their stock in
the Plan at a significantly undervalued price. The parties' claims
arise under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA")
and Delaware state law. The Court granted Ulery's motion to
reassign his case to the Court and has consolidated the cases for
pretrial purposes only at this time. The Court now addresses the
parties' competing motions for appointment as interim class
counsel.
While both parties have done work in investigating the claims,
Daly's counsel's efforts began before those of Ulery's counsel.
Daly's complaint was filed on Dec. 22, 2021, while Ulery's
complaint was filed on Feb. 14, 2022, after Ulery's counsel
reviewed Daly's complaint and documents supplied by Ulery and
conducted their own research. Judge Guzman acknowledges Ulery's
counsel's efforts in researching the relevant legal and factual
issues; nevertheless, it had the advantage of the groundwork laid
by Daly's counsel, including a filed complaint, from which to begin
its inquiry into Ulery's claims.
Judge Guzman also finds that while counsel for both Daly and Ulery
have experience litigating ERISA class actions, Ulery's counsel
appears to have more experience in this area; they have
successfully represented class members in numerous ESOP class
actions and are currently lead or co-counsel in numerous other
pending ERISA ESOP cases. Nevertheless, Daly's counsel's firm also
has been involved in at least seven ERISA class action cases and
has obtained multi-million-dollar recoveries in three of them.
Charles Field, Co-Chair of the Financial Services Litigation
Practice at Sanford Heisler Sharp, Daly's counsel, has significant
experience in the financial services industry. Field acted as
General Counsel, Director, and Chief Legal Officer of an
"SEC-registered investment management firm," where he "oversaw the
firm's compliance with ERISA, as well as federal and state
securities laws, including the federal fiduciary duty standards
embodied in the Investment Advisers Act of 1940," among other
things. Field attests that he "undertook an extensive investigation
of the facts pertaining to the allegations and claims in the
complaint." In addition, Field's co-counsel, Kevin Sharp, a former
federal district court judge, has litigated numerous ERISA cases,
several of which involved company valuations and at least one that
involved an ESOP. Finally, Daly's counsel's firm has experience in
employment class actions and other complex litigation, which is a
relevant consideration under Rule 23(g)(2).
Mr. Ulery's counsel's contentions that Daly's complaint contains
numerous mistakes does not persuade the court otherwise. The
purported mistakes are either not mistakes or are differences in
interpretation. In any event, Daly's counsel will be able to
consider and incorporate, to the extent they deem necessary, the
comments, suggestions, and purported corrections by Ulery's counsel
when filing the amended consolidated complaint. Daly's counsel has
committed to allocating the resources necessary to properly
representing the class members in this case. Given Daly's counsel's
experience in various large class action cases, the Court sees no
reason to doubt their ability to do so.
While the Court did harbor concerns about the potential conflict of
interest created by having Ulery, a former Director and board
member of West Monroe, as a plaintiff, Ulery states in his reply
memorandum that a former West Monroe employee, Daniel P. Williams,
"will serve as named plaintiff and class representative,"
apparently in Ulery's place. Accordingly, the potential conflict of
interest has not played a role in the Court's selection of interim
counsel.
IV. Order
For the reasons he stated, Judge Guzman grants Daly's motion for
appointment of interim counsel and denies Ulery's motion for
appointment of counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 15, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/7xnaw6yh from
Leagle.com.
WHY BE NORMAL: Hyder Seeks Minimum Wages, OT for Delivery Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH HYDER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, v. WHY BE NORMAL PIZZA, INC., and CHRISTOPHER RONALD
HAMILTON, Case No. 4:22-cv-25 (E.D. Tenn., June 15, 2022) is a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to the Plaintiff and
similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its
Domino's stores.
The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from September 2020 to
present as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Domino's store
located in Kimball, Tennessee.
The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise
stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Forester, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com
WORLD WRESTLING: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (NYSE: WWE)
resulting from allegations that WWE may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased WWE securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7052 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On June 15, 2022, The Wall Street Journal
published an article entitled "WWE Board Probes Secret $3 Million
Hush Pact by CEO Vince McMahon, Sources Say" which revealed that
"[t]he board of World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. [] is
investigating a secret $3 million settlement that longtime chief
executive Vince McMahon agreed to pay to a departing employee with
whom he allegedly had an affair, according to documents and people
familiar with the board inquiry." The article further revealed,
among other things, that "[t]he board's investigation, which began
in April, has unearthed other, older nondisclosure agreements
involving claims by former female WWE employees of misconduct by
Mr. McMahon and one of his top executives, John Laurinaitis, the
head of talent relations at WWE, the people said."
On this news, WWE stock price fell $2.31 per share, or 3.4%, to
close at $64.87 per share on June 16, 2022, the next full trading
day.
On June 17, 2022, before trading hours, WWE issued a press release
entitled "WWE(R) & Board of Directors Joint Release" which
announced that "a Special Committee of the Board is conducting an
investigation into alleged misconduct by its Chairman and CEO
Vincent McMahon and John Laurinaitis, head of talent relations, and
that, effective immediately, McMahon has voluntarily stepped back
from his responsibilities as CEO and Chairman of the Board until
the conclusion of the investigation."
On this news, WWE stock fell during intraday trading on June 17,
2022.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. [GN]
WYZE LABS: Quevedo Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging
-------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Quevedo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WYZE LABS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-21658-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., May 30, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act as a
result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messaging.
To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
text messaging to those who have not provided Defendant with their
prior express written consent as required by the FTSA. The
Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the requisite
policies and procedures and training required under the TCPA and
its implementing regulations. The Defendant's telephonic sales
calls have caused the Plaintiff and the Class members harm,
including violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages,
annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy. Through this
action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory damages on
behalf of himself and the Class members and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of
Defendant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
The Defendant is a foreign corporation and a "telephone
solicitor."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 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
YEXT INC: Johnson Fistel Discloses Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of Yext,
Inc.
The class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased Yext
securities between March 4, 2021 and March 8, 2022, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until August
16, 2022 to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
What actions may I take at this time? If you suffered a loss and
are interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff,
please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone
at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Yext's revenue and earnings were significantly
deteriorating because of, inter alia, poor sales execution, and
performance, as well as COVID-19-related disruptions; (ii)
accordingly, Yext was unlikely to meet consensus estimates for its
full-year ("FY") fiscal 2022 financial results and fiscal 2023
outlook; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Yext class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the Yext class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. For more information regarding the lead
plaintiff process please refer to
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/lead-plaintiff-deadlines.
About Johnson Fistel
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel
seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal
securities laws. For more information about the firm and its
attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney
advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. [GN]
YEXT INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of August 16 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Yext, Inc. ("Yext" or the "Company") (NYSE: YEXT) and
certain of its former officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
and docketed under 22-cv-05127, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Yext securities between March 4, 2021 and March
8, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Yext
securities during the Class Period, you have until August 16, 2022
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.
Yext organizes a business's facts to provide answers to consumer
questions online. The Company operates Yext platform, a cloud-based
platform that allows its customers to, among other things, provide
answers to consumer questions, control facts about their businesses
and the content of their landing pages, and manage their consumer
reviews. Yext's website describes its service as "a modern,
AI-powered Answers Platform that understands natural language so
that when people ask questions about a business online they get
direct answers-not links."
As COVID-19 resurged throughout 2021, Yext consistently assured
investors that pandemic-related impacts on the Company's business
were limited as the Company adapted to lockdowns and improved
efficiencies in its sales and other operations.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Yext's revenue and earnings were significantly
deteriorating because of, inter alia, poor sales execution and
performance, as well as COVID-19 related disruptions; (ii)
accordingly, Yext was unlikely to meet consensus estimates for its
full year ("FY") fiscal 2022 financial results and fiscal 2023
outlook; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On March 8, 2022, Yext issued a press release announcing its fourth
quarter ("Q4") and FY fiscal 2022 results. Among other items, Yext
reported Q4 fiscal 2022 revenue of $100.9 million, falling short of
consensus estimates by $140,000; first quarter ("Q1") fiscal 2023
revenue outlook of $96.3 million to $97.3 million, versus consensus
estimates of $103.79 million; Q1 fiscal 2023 non-GAAP net loss per
share outlook of $0.08 to $0.07, versus consensus estimates of
$0.05; FY fiscal 2023 revenue outlook of $403.3 million to $407.3
million, versus consensus estimates of $444.71 million; and FY
fiscal 2023 non-GAAP net loss per share outlook of $0.19 to $0.17,
versus consensus estimates of $0.09. The Company further disclosed
the departure of its CEO and CFO.
That same day, on a conference call to discuss Yext's Q4 and FY
fiscal 2022 results, the Company's incoming CEO, Michael Walrath
("Walrath"), addressed the Company's disappointing financial
results, revealing, inter alia, that "we have seen fragmentation in
our interactions with customers and our ability to deliver premium
service and support" and that, "[i]n hindsight, it is clear we were
too focused on building sales capacity and not focused enough on
other functions that drive productivity, particularly sales
enablement, training, client success and services." Walrath also
disclosed that "we saw a really significant disruption in our
business" such as "in Q4, 50% -- over 50% of our in-person events
were canceled because of the Omicron surges[,]" while opining that
Yext could "[a]bsolutely" improve its "sales motion so that it's
more efficient during disruptions like that[.]"
Following that call, a Truist Securities analyst lowered the firm's
rating on Yext to hold from buy and slashed its price target to $6
from $17, noting, among other things, that key performing
indicators showed an "unexpected slowdown" in Q4, guidance for
fiscal 2023 shows no near-term turn around, and that "planned
changes under new management (in go-to-market strategy, sales
organization) carry execution risks and the timing for a meaningful
and sustainable revival in growth is unclear[.]"
Following these disclosures, Yext's stock price fell $0.55 per
share, or 9.29%, to close at $5.37 per share on March 9, 2022.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com [GN]
*********
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 ***