/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220804.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, August 4, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 149
Headlines
ALAMEDA COUNTY, AL: Time Extension for Class Cert. Response Sought
ALEJANDRO VILLANUEVA: Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
ALLSTATE CORP: Summary Judgment on Securities Fraud Claim Granted
ALTICE USA INC: Concepcion Sues Over Internet Service Fees' Scheme
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Blind Cannot Access to Web Site, Suit Says
ANDERSON COUNTY, TX: Seeks to Postpone Response to Class Cert Bid
APPLE INC: Agrees to $20M Settlement Over iPhone 4S Update
ARRIAGA & ASSOC: Denial of Bid to Disqualify B&G as Counsel Upheld
ART+1 INC: Suit Seeks Initial Approval of Class Action Settlement
AVALON HEALTH: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 30, 2023
AXIOM SOLUTIONS: Herrera Files Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
B S D FOOD LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arbizu Suit Alleges
BEFORE BRANDS: SpoonfulONE Products Falsely Advertised, Suit Claims
BRISTOL BAY: Seeks to Denial of Awmagan, et al., Class Status Bid
BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Feb. 24, 2023
CAHABA HEIGHTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beavers Suit Alleges
CALIFORNIA: Cole-Kelly Seeks to Certify Disgorgement Class
CAVCO INDUSTRIES: Rosen Law Investigates Possible Securities Suit
CHOCOLATIER INC: Morales Seeks to Certify Two Classes
CORSAIR GAMING: Court Narrows Claims in McKinney Suit
CSAA GENERAL: Amended Rule 16 Scheduling Order Entered in Franklin
CSL PLASMA: To Pay $9.9M to Settle Suit Over Biometric Collection
DAL GLOBAL: Fine Sues Over Failure to Provide Seat at Workstation
DEUTSCHE BANK: Karimi Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
DIGNITY CARE: Parties File Stipulation to Adopt FLSA Collective
DOORDASH INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Binbek Suit Claims
DRAPER AND KRAMER: Loses Bid to Junk Vasquez Class Status Bid
DSW HOMES: Faces Trejo Suit Over Project Managers' Unpaid Overtime
ECP-PF CT: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Oldacre Suit Alleges
EDUCATION CREDIT: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due May 10, 2023
EVERGLADES COLLEGE: Leigue FTSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
FARAZLI MEDICINE: Judge Certifies Suit Over Infection Controls
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Conditional Certification in Fischer Suit Upheld
FIRST ORDER: Seeks August 10 Extension to File Class Cert Response
FIRST ORDER: Time to Respond to Class Cert Bid Extended
FLOWERS FOODS: Seeks Reconsideration of July 5, 2022 Order
FORD MOTOR: Seeks August 4 Extension to Reply to Tucker Opposition
GEICO CASUALTY: Class Cert Order in Wright Suit Held in Abeyance
GREENE KLEEN: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Garcia Suit Alleges
GROSS SKINCARE: Seeks Leave to File Documents Under Seal
H&M HENNES: Commodore Sues Over Mislabeled Products in Website
HOME DEPOT: Almanzar Provisional Class Status Bid Partly OK'd
HOME DEPOT: N.D. California Allows Utne to File Fifth Amended Suit
JACK'S EGGS: Faces Garcia Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
KING'S FOOD: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Abdalla Suit Alleges
LHC GROUP: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due March 31, 2023
LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Sept. 2
LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Time Extension to Conduct Discovery Sought
LINCARE HOLDINGS: Settles Class Suit Over Data Breach for $875K
MANNA 2ND AVENUE: Herrera Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice
MARKETSOURCE INC: August 25 Pretrial Scheduling Conference Vacated
MERIDIAN CORP: Hit With Class Action for Alleged Predatory Lending
META PLATFORMS: CEO to Testify on Cambridge Analytica Scandal
MISSFRESH LIMITED: Robbins Reminds of September 12 Deadline
MISSOURI: District Court Dismisses Henson v. SECC Without Prejudice
NATIONS LENDING: Third Amended Sched Order Entered in Fitzhenry
NEVZAT ZENELI: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Clifton Claims
NEW SOUTH WALES: Hundreds Join Class Action Over Strip Searches
NEW YORK, NY: Sept. 12 Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Sought
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Class Action Claims Over Sunroofs Certified
ONLY WHAT YOU NEED: Brand Sues Over Mislabeled Protein Shakes
OREGON: Nearly Half of Inmates Included in COVID Class Action Suit
PETS GLOBAL: Settles Suit Over Mislabeled Pet Foods for $2 Million
PFIZER INC: To Pay $190-Mil. to Wrap Up Neurontin Class Action
PHH MORTGAGE: Mass. District Court Dismisses Giannasca Class Suit
POWER PARAGON: Burns Seeks to Certify Class Action
PRATT & WHITNEY: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due June 16, 2023
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Frazier Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Scheduling Order Entered in Ford Suit
PRUDENTIAL CO: Insurance Carrier Secures Dismissal of Class Suit
PUSHPAY USA: Court Approves Revised Settlement Notice
RAUSCH STURM: Stenner Files Bid for Class Certification
SALERNO DUANE: Orders Denying Class Status in Cerciello Upheld
SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL: Gallardo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
STARBUCKS CORP: Settles Wage and Tip Class Suit for $6 Million
STATE FARM: Court Grants Renewed Bid to Seal Docs in Toms Suit
STUBHUB INC: Stipulation Continuing Class Cert Briefing Filed
STUBHUB: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Continued in Refund Suit
SUN PHARMACEUTICAL: Settles Ranbaxy Class Action for $485 Million
SUNPOWER CORP: Barnes et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
SUTTER VALLEY: Ward Loses Bid for Class Certification
T-MOBILE USA: Agrees to $350M Settlement Over Massive Data Breach
TG THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Reminds Investors of Class Action
TRANS UNION: Settlement in Ramirez Suit Wins Initial OK
TRIANGLE CROSS: Class Cert Filing Deadline Extended to August 12
TROPICANA ATLANTIC: Rosa's Bid for Conditional Class Status OK'd
TRUEACCORD CORP: Rivers Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
UNITED PARCEL: $1.95M in Attys' Fees & Costs Awarded in BleachTech
WAKEFERN FOOD: Graham Crackers Falsely Advertised, Class Suit Says
WALMART INC: Faces Class Suit Over Fair Workweek Law Violations
WALMART INC: Granola Bars Falsely Advertised, Class Action Says
WALMART INC: Recalls, Class Action Lawsuits Pile Up in 2022
WARRANTECH CONSUMER: Scheduling Order Entered in Elliot Suit
WELLS FARGO: First Amended CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Lanning
WYNN RESORTS: Ferris Suit Seeks to Certify Class
XEROX CORP: Class of Employees Certified in Vollmer ERISA Suit
ZYNGA INC: Rider to Protective Order in Ferrando Suit Okayed
[*] Florida Class Actions Over Patients' Health Info Discussed
*********
ALAMEDA COUNTY, AL: Time Extension for Class Cert. Response Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMIDA RUELAS; DE’ANDRE
EUGENE COX; BERT DAVIS; KATRISH JONES; JOSEPH MEBRAHTU; DAHRYL
REYNOLDS; MONICA MASON; LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO; SCOTT ABBEY and all
others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; GREGORY J. AHERN,
SHERIFF; ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10,
Case No. 4:19-cv-07637-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate and
propose as follows:
1. Good cause exists to extend the defendants' deadline to
file their oppositions to plaintiffs' motion for class
certification from July 29, 2022 to August 26, 2022.
2. In light of the extension of defendants' opposition
deadline, the date for plaintiffs' reply in support of
their motion for class certification should be extended
from August 19, 2022 to September 16, 2022.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3beDbqW at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
EmilyRose Johns, Esq.
SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA
The Attorneys for the Defendant Aramark Correctional Services, LLC,
are:
Cortlin H. Lannin, Esq.
Isaac D. Chaput, Esq.
Eric C. Bosset, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
Salesforce Tower
415 Mission Street, Suite 5400
San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
Telephone: (415) 591-6000
Facsimile: (415) 591-6091
E-mail: clannin@cov.com
ichaput@cov.com
ebosset@cov.com
The Attorneys for the Defendants the County of Alameda, and Sheriff
Gregory J. Ahern, are:
Gilbert J. Tsai, Esq.
Paul B. Mello, Esq.
Samantha D. Wolff, Esq.
Winston K. Hu, Esq.
HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
ALEJANDRO VILLANUEVA: Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as People of Los Angeles
County Who Are Being Penally Confined in Pre-Trial Detention
Because of and Dependent Upon Their Inability To Pay Bail et al v.
Alejandro Villanueva, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02538-MWF-JEM (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald entered an order
granting ex parte application for order denying, vacating, staying
or, in the alternative, setting a briefing schedule on plaintiffs'
second motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied without
prejudice as to refiling after the issuance of the Scheduling
Order.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JcQWmy at no extra charge.[CC]
ALLSTATE CORP: Summary Judgment on Securities Fraud Claim Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 16 C 10510 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment.
Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California and
Carpenters Annuity Trust Fund for Northern California, bring the
two-count securities fraud class action against Allstate, its CEO,
Chairman, and 2005-15 President Thomas Wilson, and its CEO and
President since 2015 Matthew Winter. Count I alleges that the
Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act,
15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.
Count II, brought against only Wilson and Winter, alleges control
person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. 15 U.S.C.
Section 78(a).
The Plaintiffs' principal allegation is that the Defendants made
material misstatements and omissions regarding the proximate cause
of a spike in auto claims frequency, which they allege had a
material negative impact on Allstate's financial condition and
stock price.
In 2013, Allstate implemented an aggressive strategy to grow its
auto insurance business. While the complaint refers primarily to
softening underwriting standards, the Plaintiffs now claim that
Allstate loosened its underwriting standards in connection with the
implementation of several pricing initiatives, such as "Broaden the
Target" and "Complementary Group Rating." In 2013, Allstate noted
that an increased growth strategy could cause "some pressure" on
auto claims "frequency," but assured the market that Allstate would
closely monitor it.
According to the Plaintiffs, Allstate began to experience a
frequency increase as early as September 2014. On Oct. 29, 2014,
Allstate announced its financial results for third quarter 2014,
reporting strong profitability. The next day, it had an earnings
call with securities analysts, and Wilson and Winters addressed the
potential effect of low gas prices on claim frequency. The
Plaintiffs allege that Winter's statement was false and misleading
because frequency had already increased earlier that autumn.
Similarly, at a Goldman Sachs Investor Conference on Dec. 9, 2014,
when an analyst asked Wilson about Allstate's auto rates and
profitability, Wilson stated he felt good about auto insurance in
general terms of profitability. The Plaintiffs argue that this
statement was misleading because Allstate had already experienced a
"tick up" in claims frequency, and Wilson and Winters knew about
this increase. As evidence of scienter, they point to Wilson's sale
of nearly $33 million in Allstate stock in November 2014. They also
find it unusual that neither Wilson nor Lee can recall any details
of Wilson's meeting to clear his trades.
Allstate first disclosed an increase in claims frequency in a Feb.
4, 2015, press release. In May 2015, Allstate disclosed a second
consecutive quarter of increased claims frequency. At the end of
the class period on Aug. 4, 2015 -- after Allstate had experienced
three consecutive quarters of increased frequency -- Winters
admitted that Allstate's growth had contributed "to the higher
frequency they are seeing" and, in response, Allstate would
"tighten some of our underwriting parameters." The Plaintiffs argue
that this was a powerful admission that Allstate's frequency
increase was not caused solely by temporary external factors, and
that its aggressive growth strategies were at least partly to blame
for the increase. As a result, Allstate's stock dropped 10% the
next day.
Allstate moves for summary judgment on both counts, arguing that
the uncontested facts prove that the statements were factually
accurate or an expression of honest opinion or belief, there was no
material omission, and the parties lacked intent to defraud. It
also complains that the Plaintiffs have impermissibly broadened
their claims at the summary judgment stage.
As a preliminary matter, Allstate argues that the Plaintiffs cannot
assert new theories of securities fraud not alleged in the original
pleadings. The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that "greatly reduced
underwriting standards" were the undisclosed cause of Allstate's
claim frequency increase. The complaint does not explicitly mention
the BTT and CGR pricing initiatives. The Plaintiffs counter
Allstate's argument by demonstrating that the Court, the Seventh
Circuit, and the Defendants all understood that their allegations
are based on the impact of Allstate's "aggressive growth strategy,"
which involved more than just changes to Allstate's underwriting
standards.
Judge Gettleman finds that the Plaintiffs are not invoking an
"unpled" and "entirely new theory" of securities fraud. Rather, the
complaint contained sufficient particularity for the Defendants and
the Court to understand that their allegations related to
Allstate's growth strategy more generally.
Next, in Count I, the Plaintiffs allege two theories of securities
fraud. For statements made before Feb. 4, 2015, they base their
claims on alleged omissions, primarily, that the Defendants did not
disclose a claim frequency increase that began in October 2014. For
statements on Feb. 4, 2015, they assert that the Defendants lied
when they attributed Allstate's claim frequency increase to
external factors, such as weather and miles driven.
Judge Gettleman opines that the Defendants' argument fails, and he
need not address the minutia of the parties' scienter arguments,
because those arguments require the Court to make credibility
determinations and weigh the evidence in ways that are
inappropriate on a motion for summary judgment. Given the
circumstantial evidence and questions of credibility, he cannot
find as a matter of law that no reasonable jury could conclude that
the requisite scienter exists. In fact, a reasonable jury could
very well find that defendants acted with the requisite scienter.
He declines to grant summary judgment to the Defendants on this
basis.
Judge Gettleman further opines that the crux of the Defendants
argument is that the August 2015 statements were not a corrective
disclosure or an admission of prior falsity. The Plaintiffs have
provided evidence that analysts -- and the market -- disagreed.
Analyst reports appear to have understood the August 2015
statements to have been a crucial admission, and Allstate's stock
price dropped 10% the next day. Given this evidence, a reasonable
jury could very well find that the August 2015 statements
constitute a corrective disclosure.
Finally, Count II brings a claim for control person liability
against defendants Wilson and Winters. A control person claim under
Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act must be based on an
underlying violation of the securities laws or the rules
promulgated under them. The Defendants move for summary judgment on
this count on the basis that the Plaintiffs have failed to
establish their securities fraud claims. However, for the reasons
he discussed, Judge Gettleman opines that a reasonable jury could
find an underlying securities law violation. Consequently, he
denies the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Count II.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/dypyudke from
Leagle.com.
ALTICE USA INC: Concepcion Sues Over Internet Service Fees' Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIVIDAD CONCEPCION; XUE SHI LIN; and JESSE FRIEDMAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
ALTICE USA, INC.; CSC HOLDINGS, LLC (D/B/A OPTIMUM); and DOES 1
THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04308
(E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2022) seeks to challenge the deceptive fees
scheme whereby the Defendants charged their customers more for
Optimum internet service than Defendants advertised and promised.
According to the complaint, the Defendants advertised and promised
to sell Optimum internet service to consumers at flat monthly rates
for a specified time period, and Defendants' customers agreed to
pay those rates for Optimum internet service. However, the
Defendants actually charged their customers higher monthly rates by
unilaterally and deceptively adding to each customer's monthly bill
a fabricated, undisclosed, and extra-contractual additional charge,
which Defendants called a "Network Enhancement Fee," says the
suit.
The Defendants used this Network Enhancement Fee (the "Fee") as a
way to covertly increase their customers' monthly rates for
Defendants' own profit, including during their customers'
advertised and promised fixed-rate service periods, the suit
added.
ALTICE USA, INC. operates as a telecommunication and media company.
The Company offers digital cable television, high-speed broadband
and ultra-HD video, internet, local news and voice offerings, data,
and digital advertising solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
315 Madison Ave., 3rd Fl.
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 979-3642
Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
-and-
Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
HATTIS & LUKACS
11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120
Bellevue, WA 98005
Telephone: (425) 233-8650
Facsimile: (425) 412-7171
Email: dan@hattislaw.com
Email: pkl@hattislaw.com
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Blind Cannot Access to Web Site, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA HOBBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-06140 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2022) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.ameriprise.com/, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC. operates as a financial planning and
services firm. The Company provides financial planning and products
and services that are designed to be utilized as solutions for its
clients' cash and liquidity, asset accumulation, income,
protection, and estate and wealth transfer needs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
ANDERSON COUNTY, TX: Seeks to Postpone Response to Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTIAN MARTINEZ, ET AL,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS, ET AL., Case No. 6:22-cv-00171-JCB-KNM
(E.D. Tex.), Defendants Anderson County, Texas, and Karina Garcia
ask the Court to enter an order postponing the deadline for their
response to Plaintiffs' Motion for 90 to 120 days, until February
21, 2023 (deadline proposed by Defendants in proposed Docket
Control Order), or, in the alternative, to stay the deadline until
after the August 11, 2023 scheduling conference and entry of a
docket control order that includes a class certification response
deadline.
At the present time, the deadline for Defendant to respond to the
Motion to Certify Class is July 25, 2022. That deadline is simply
insufficient for any discovery to be completed. Indeed, the
defendants would not even have time to take the depositions of the
"Named Class Representatives." The discovery in the case will also
involve looking at hundreds of inmate files to determine if the
claims are even sufficiently similar or meet the numerosity
requirements for the specific bond conditions alleged.
The Plaintiffs filed their original Motion to Certify Class
alongside the Original Complaint on May 4, 2022.
The Plaintiffs -- three individuals placed on bond supervision in
Anderson County, Texas -- filed their complaint against Anderson
County, Texas and the Anderson County bond supervision officer,
Karina Garcia, in her official capacity only.
The Plaintiffs purport to represent the following putative classes:
-- Main Damages Class: All persons who are or have been on
pre-trial bond supervision in Anderson County and charged
bond supervision and/or urinalysis fees.
-- Indigent Damages Subclass: All indigent persons who are or
have been on pre-trial bond supervision in Anderson County
and charged bond supervision and/or urinalysis fees.
-- Main Injunctive Class: All persons who are or will be on
pre-trial bond supervision in Anderson County and charged
bond supervision and/or urinalysis fees.
-- Indigent Injunctive Subclass: All indigent persons who are
or will be on pre-trial bond supervision in Anderson
County and charged bond supervision and/or urinalysis
fees.
The Plaintiffs also assert the following causes of action:
Count One: Violation of Due Process Regarding Deprivation of
Property Interest in Bond Supervision Fee Amount
Count Two: Violation of Procedural Due Process for Arbitrary
Bail
Count Three: Violation of Procedural Due Process for Financial
Conflict of Interest
Count Four: Violation of Procedural Due Process Regarding
Ability to Pay
Count Five: Violation of Procedural Due Process Regarding
Revocation for Non-Payment of Bond Fee
Count Six: Violation of Equal Protection for Wealth-Based
Discrimination
Count Seven: Violation of Due Process and Equal Protection
Regarding Urinalysis
Count Eight: Violation of Right to Privacy
Anderson County is a county in the U.S. state of Texas. Located
within East Texas, its county seat is Palestine. As of the 2020
United States census, the population of Anderson County was 57,922.
Anderson County comprises the Palestine micropolitan statistical
area.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 19, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q4jvEW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert S. Davis
John "Jack" R. Fulgham
FLOWERS DAVIS, P.L.L.C.
1021 ESE Loop 323, Suite 200
Tyler, TX 75701
Telephone: (903) 534-8063
Facsimile: (903) 534-1650
E-mail: rsd@flowersdavis.com
jrf@flowersdavis.com
APPLE INC: Agrees to $20M Settlement Over iPhone 4S Update
----------------------------------------------------------
TopClassActions.org reports that Apple has agreed to a $20 million
settlement resolving claims its iOS 9 update on the iPhone 4S
substantially slowed down the phones.
The class is made up of anyone who downloaded iOS 9, or any version
thereof, onto their iPhone 4S, lived in New York or New Jersey at
the time they first downloaded any version of iOS 9, and whose
iPhone 4S experienced a significant decline in performance as a
result. Consumers must meet all three criteria to be considered
class members.
An owner is someone who owned, purchased, leased or otherwise
received an eligible device for personal, work or any other
purposes.
Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit claim they upgraded their
iPhone 4S devices' operating system to iOS 9, initially released in
September 2015, based on Apple's allegedly false representations
about it. They claim they were then plagued by diminished device
performance.
Tech giant Apple denies any wrongdoing but has agreed to the iPhone
4S iOS 9 update settlement to avoid the risks and costs associated
with litigation.
Under the terms of the settlement, Apple will provide a cash
payment to class members who submit a declaration that they meet
the class definition.
The final payment amount will depend on the number of valid claims
and other factors, such as the court's award of attorneys' fees and
expenses.
The payment will be about $15 per eligible device. However, that
payment could be adjusted up or down on a pro rata basis, depending
on the number of claims filed. The maximum possible per-device
amount that could be paid is $150.
If multiple class members submit claims related to the same
eligible device, the payment amount for that device will be divided
equally among those submitting approved claims.
Unused money remaining in the fund will not revert to Apple.
The deadline to opt out of or object to the iPhone 4S iOS 9 update
settlement is Aug. 29, 2022.
A final hearing in the settlement will take place Sept. 22, 2022.
The deadline to submit a claim is Aug. 29, 2022.
Who's Eligible: The class is made up of anyone who downloaded iOS
9, or any version thereof, onto their iPhone 4S, lived in New York
or New Jersey at the time they first downloaded any version of iOS
9, and whose iPhone 4S experienced a significant decline in
performance as a result. Consumers must meet all three criteria to
be considered class members.
Potential Award: Up to $150
Proof of Purchase: No proof of purchase necessary
Claim Form: TO FILE A CLAIM, CLICK
https://secure.operatingsystemupdatesettlement.com/
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline: 08/29/2022
Case Name: Lerman v. Apple Inc., No. 15-cv-07381 (SJ) (LB), in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Final Hearing: 09/22/2022
Settlement Website: OperatingSystemUpdateSettlement.com
Claims Administrator:
Lerman v. Apple Inc.
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91446
Seattle, WA 98111
info@OperatingSystemUpdateSettlement.com
855-540-0949
Class Counsel:
Jeremy A Lieberman
Michael Grunfeld
POMERANTZ LLP
Peter Bronstein
Eitan Kimelman
BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLC
Defense Counsel:
Raj N Shah
Keara M Gordon
DLA PIPER LLP [GN]
ARRIAGA & ASSOC: Denial of Bid to Disqualify B&G as Counsel Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARRIAGA AND ASSOCIATES WAGE AND HOUR CASE, Case No.
H048902 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the
Sixth District affirms the order denying Louis Christopher Arriaga
and Arriaga & Associates, Inc.'s motion to disqualify Bradley &
Gmelich, LLP, from representing any parties prosecuting wage and
hour claims against them in a coordination proceeding.
Louis Arriaga is the president and director of A&A, a California
business that provides security services, principally armed
security guards, to other businesses. A&A employed Jason Lara and
Jose Segura as armed security guards. At the same time, Lara and
Segura owned their own security guard business, Maddison Group,
Inc. While Lara and Segura were still employed by A&A, A&A's
primary client, Dave & Buster's, terminated its security services
contract with A&A and entered a security services contract with
Maddison Group.
In May 2017, Arriaga filed a business tort action against Lara,
Segura, and Maddison Group, among others, under various theories of
liability based on the allegation that Segura and Lara stole
Arriaga's main customer and improperly solicited A&A's employees to
work for their competing business. B&G has represented Lara,
Segura, and Maddison Group throughout the Arriaga action.
In October 2017, Lara and Segura filed a cross-complaint against
Arriaga in the Arriaga action alleging individual wage and hour
claims and representative claims for civil penalties pursuant to
the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.
Several other plaintiffs -- represented by counsel other than B&G
-- filed lawsuits against A&A before and after Lara and Segura
filed their cross-complaint. In July 2017, plaintiffs Eddie Giron
and Jesus Alarcon filed a putative class action, alleging similar
wage and hour violations against A&A. In March 2018, Plaintiff
George Jordan initiated a putative class and representative PAGA
action against A&A for alleged wage and hour violations. In
December 2018, plaintiff Francisco Ibarra initiated a class and
representative action.
In July 2019, B&G filed a wage and hour complaint against Arriaga
on behalf of plaintiffs Douglas Martin, Marty Verducci, and Russ
Oleyer. This complaint did not include class claims.
By Jan. 14, 2020, all the foregoing actions were coordinated in the
present proceeding. All told, B&G represents five of nine
individual plaintiffs pursuing class claims in the coordination
proceeding.
Pursuant to a stipulated order, B&G's individual clients -- Lara,
Segura, Martin, Verducci, and Oleyer -- consolidated their claims
against Arriaga by filing a joint First Amended Class Action
Cross-Complaint on July 8, 2020. This was the first pleading by
which any B&G client asserted class claims.
On Nov. 12, 2020, Arriaga moved to disqualify B&G as counsel for
any claimant in the coordination proceeding. It asserted that B&G
should have been disqualified as counsel because (1) B&G is
concurrently representing both Maddison Group, an A&A competitor,
and individuals and putative class members pursuing wage and hour
claims against Arriaga; and (2) B&G's own interests are in conflict
with the interests of the employees it seeks to represent.
On Feb. 4, 2021, the trial court filed a written order denying the
motion. Arriaga timely appealed.
The Court of Appeals finds that the trial court concluded that
Arriaga lacked standing to move to disqualify B&G because (1) B&G
had no attorney-client or other confidential relationship with
Arriaga; and (2) Arriaga did not establish a manifest and glaring
ethical breach by B&G. In so doing, it considered whether the
evidence Arriaga submitted demonstrated that B&G had a conflict of
interest, but found the evidence wanting. Moreover, it rejected as
"hypothetical and speculative" Arriaga's contention that B&G might
disclose A&A's confidential information to Maddison Group.
The Court of Appeals agrees. First, it opines that Arriaga's
arguments mistake the merits of a disqualification motion in a
class action for the requirements for a nonclient to bring such a
motion in the first instance. Moreover, it has no reason to doubt
the adequacy of existing law to protect the interests of the
putative class. It need not create a more solicitous standing
standard for disqualification motions to ensure that class counsel
is vetted before assuming representation of a class.
Relaxing the standing requirement to bring disqualification motions
in class action cases, as a means to encourage early adequacy
challenges, may "pose the very threat to the integrity of the
judicial process that it purports to prevent, the Court of Appeals
finds. It says, such motions can be used to harass opposing
counsel, to delay the litigation, to intimidate an adversary into
accepting settlement on otherwise unacceptable terms, or for other
strategic purposes. To adopt a lower standard applicable to
defendants in a putative class action would invite the
inappropriate tactical disqualification motions that the standing
requirement is intended to curtail.
Second, the Court of Appeals opines that Arriaga lacks the
requisite standing to move for B&G's disqualification. It says,
Arriaga has not identified a potentially cognizable interest, other
than its general interest in a just and lawful determination of the
claims at issue. Its purported interests in being shielded from
aggressive litigation tactics and in the preservation of trade
secrets are hypothetical and speculative. Moreover, even under the
more relaxed minority view of standing, Arriaga has not identified
a manifest and glaring ethical breach that so infects the
litigation as to impact its general interest in a just and lawful
determination of the claims at issue. Its contentions regarding an
alleged conflict of interest between Maddison Group or B&G and the
putative class are unpersuasive.
Mindful of the caution to "be skeptical of the impetus and purpose
of the Defendants' motion to disqualify" lest it "pose the very
threat to the integrity of the judicial process that it purports to
prevent," the Court of Appeals concludes that Arriaga failed to
establish a manifest and glaring breach of B&G's obligations to its
individual clients or to the putative class that would, under the
more inclusive minority view, confer standing on a nonclient. Thus,
the trial court properly ruled that Arriaga lacked standing to move
disqualify B&G from representing its individual clients or the
putative class.
Lara and Segura are awarded their costs on appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ya59ew9m from Leagle.com.
ART+1 INC: Suit Seeks Initial Approval of Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SALVADOR SANCHEZ, CELSO
TORRES, IDELFONSO GIL RODRIGUEZ, WANDY RAMIREZ, DAVID TORRES and
JHON VINAS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. ART+1, Inc. and ARTAN MAKSUTI, Individually, Case No.
20-cv-05623-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs files a consent motion to
approve settlement agreement, cerify settlement class, authorize
notice to class, and schedule fairness hearing.
The Plaintiffs also request the Court to approve the proposed
apportionment of the settlement proceeds, after conducting a a
hearing about the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
proposed settlement.
Art+1 is a general contractor specializing in the residential and
commercial sector.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 19, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oWcSJD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
225 Broadway, 3 rd Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 323-6980
AVALON HEALTH: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 30, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Estrada v. Avalon Health
Care Hearthstone LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00688 (D. Or.), the
Hon. Judge Mark D. Clarke entered an order on motion for extension
of Discovery & PTO Deadlines.
The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due by Jan. 30,
2023, Mag. Judge Clarke says.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Avalon was founded in 2017. The company's line of business includes
providing inpatient nursing and rehabilitative services to patients
who require continuous health care.[CC]
AXIOM SOLUTIONS: Herrera Files Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN HERRERA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AXIOM SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-02443 (S.D. Tex., July 22, 2022) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a lead installer from
July 2021 until April 13, 2022.
According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff regularly worked
more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant denied him of overtime
premium at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Instead, he
was paid on a piece-rate basis whereby he was paid a set amount of
money for each task performed during the remodeling of a customer's
bathroom, regardless of the number of hours he spent performing
work each day or week, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendant's unlawful pay practice, the Plaintiff
has suffered damages. Thus, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated construction workers, the Plaintiff seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages at the applicable rate, liquidated
damages in an equal amount to the unpaid overtime wages,
pre-judgment interest, litigations costs and attorney's fees, and
other relief as the Court deems just and equitable, the suit
added.
Axiom Solutions, LLC provides construction and remodeling services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 10099
Houston, TX 77206
Tel: (713) 868-3388
Fax: (713) 683-9940
E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
B S D FOOD LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arbizu Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON ARBIZU, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. B S D FOOD LLC d/b/a BAGEL D'LOX; and NELSON
BUCHINGER, Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-06155 (S.D.N.Y July 19,
2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Arbizu was employed by the Defendants as food preparer.
B.S.D. FOODS, LTD. provides self serve foods for immediate
consumption. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Stein, Esq.
STEIN & NIEPORENT LLP
1441 Broadway, Suite 6090
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 308-3444
BEFORE BRANDS: SpoonfulONE Products Falsely Advertised, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C., is investigating a class
action against Before Brands, Inc. ("Before Brands") the company
that developed and manufacturers SpoonfulONE products. Before
Brands developed the SpoonfulONE products to reduce food allergy
development risk with 16 key allergens in order to train a child's
immune system.
Before Brands advertise that the SpoonfulONE products, which
include Mix-ins, Puffs, Crunchy Puffs and Oat Crackers, makes
multi-allergen introduction of foods easy and safe for parents and
effective in introducing common food allergens early during the
immune system's development in order for the immune cells in the
stomach to begin to recognize the food and when eaten on an ongoing
basis, teaches the immune system that the 16 foods are just foods,
not allergens.
However, the manufacturing process of SpoonfulONE's Puffs, Crunchy
Puffs and Oat Crackers completely destroys the proteins in the
allergenic food resulting in virtually no introduction of the
allergenic food to the baby. In fact, when Nestle Health Science,
which has the exclusive right to sell SpoonfulONE products
internationally, tried to introduce these products to the United
Kingdom ("UK") market, leading UK allergists said SpoonfulONE's
non-powder products were not effective and should not be marketed
as promoting food allergy prevention. Nestle voluntarily pulled
these products from the UK market.
If you have purchased SpoonfulONE's Puffs, Crunchy Puffs or Oat
Crackers and wish to find out more about this investigation and
potential class action or participate in the class action, please
call our office today to speak with a knowledgeable and dedicated
class action lawyer who can outline your rights and help determine
if you are in line to receive money damages. All consultations are
free of and come with no obligation.
Contact:
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
Rockland County, New York
16 Squadron Blvd, Suite 106
New City, NY 10977
Bergen County, New Jersey
135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
Montvale, NJ 07645
Tel: 800-711-5258 [GN]
BRISTOL BAY: Seeks to Denial of Awmagan, et al., Class Status Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barkadle Sheikh Muhamed
Awmagan, Arab Mursal Deh, Majuma Madende, Osman Musa Mohamed, Osman
Musa Muganga, Rukia Musa, and Fatuma Somow, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. Bristol Bay Native
Corporation, Glacier Technical Solutions, LLC, and Workforce
Resources, LLC, and DOES 1-50, Case No. 3:18-cv-01700-JO-AGS (S.D.
Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Defendants' contend that the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is baffling. While Plaintiffs' Motion is not
completely clear regarding which causes of action they seek to
certify, it appears that they may be seeking Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 23 class certification as to both their First Cause
of Action for Failure to Pay Required Minimum Wages in Violation of
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and their Second Cause of Action
for Breach of Written Contract, which are the only two claims
alleged in the operative complaint. However, neither of these
claims can be certified.
In their Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs sought to represent the
following class:
"All persons who are employed by or have been employed as a
role-player on an hourly basis or who hold or held the
position role-player, by the Defendants to work on Camp
Pendleton from four years before the filing of this suit to
the present."
While Plaintiffs allege a class period of "four years before the
filing of this suit to the present," Workforce stopped providing
Role Players for Camp Pendleton in July 17 2017.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QasHYJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Amy Todd-Gher, Esq.
Khatereh S. Fahimi, Esq.
Shelley L. Murray, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101.3577
Telephone: (619) 232-0441
Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
E-mail: atodd-gher@littler.com
sfahimi@littler.com
smurray@littler.com
BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Feb. 24, 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SALLY E. RICE, as trustee
for the Winston Lawrence Rice Trust, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, v. BURLINGTON RESOURCES OIL & GAS
COMPANY LP, Case No. 4:20-cv-00431-GKF-SH (N.D. Okla.), the Hon.
Judge Gregory K. Frizzell entered a fifth amended class
certification scheduling order as follows:
-- Documents previously produced by Feb. 24, 2023
Parties shall be deemed
authenticated:
-- Class Certification Motion and Feb. 24, 2023
Plaintiff's expert disclosures:
-- Response to Class Certification April 24, 2023
Motion and Defendant's expert
disclosures:
-- Reply to Class Certification May 24, 2023
Motion:
-- Class Certification Discovery May 24,2023
cutoff:
-- Hearing on Class Certification July 31, 2023
Motion:
Burlington Resources owns and operates oil and gas wells.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bcmigF at no extra charge.[CC]
CAHABA HEIGHTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beavers Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
CODY BEAVERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAHABA HEIGHTS PLAZA, LLC; UNITED PIZZA;
INC.; and MOHAMMED (DAVID) DAWOUD, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00890-NAD (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2022) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Beavers was employed by the Defendants as delivery
driver.
CAHABA HEIGHTS PLAZA operates Domino's Pizza franchise stores.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
Jolie N. Pavlos, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
csilva@forthepeople.com
- and -
David A. Hughes, Esq.
HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP
2121 14th Street
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
Telephone: (205) 523-0463
Facsimile: (205) 344-6188
Email: dhughes@hardinhughes.com
CALIFORNIA: Cole-Kelly Seeks to Certify Disgorgement Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alison Cole-Kelly,
Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and BETTY T. YEE in her capacity as Controller
of the State of California, Case No. 4:22-cv-02841-HSG (N.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a
Disgorgement Class consisting of:
"all persons and entities, from 7 January 1, 2009 to the
present, whose personal property was temporarily taken and
used by the State of California without compensation to the
true owners, for disgorgement from the State of California
for its the use of their personal property without
compensation, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution, and Article I,
Section 19(a) of the California Constitution
The Plaintiff will also move, pursuant to F. R. Civ. P., Rule
23(b)(2), for certification of a class of all current and future
owners of personal property whose “unclaimed' personal property
is and will continue in the future to be temporarily taken and
used, without compensation to the owners, by the State of
California, pursuant to C.C.P. sections 1540(c), 16 1562, 1563,
1564(b) and 1564 (c), to declare said statutes unconstitutional and
void ab initio, and for injunctive relief to enjoin the State of
California from, now and going forward in the future, taking and
using for its benefit said unclaimed personal property without
compensation to the owners.
During the Class Period, from January 1, 2009 to the present, the
State of California, through its Controller, regularly took and
used the unclaimed personal property it obtained for its own
benefit, to pay its bills and financial obligations, without
compensating the owners of said unclaimed personal property for the
value of the State of California's use of their unclaimed personal
property. Said use constituted and continues to constitute an
unconstitutional taking without compensation, in violation of the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution
and of Article I, Section 19(a) of the California Constitution, the
lawsuit says.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 19,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cS4844
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel Kornhauser, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SAMUEL KORNHAUSER
155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 981-6281
Facsimile: (415) 981-7616
E-mail: samuel.kornhauser@gmail.com
- and -
Brian David, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN DAVID
1329 N. Dearborn No. 1
Chicago, IL 60610
Telephone: (847) 778-7528
E-mail: bdbriandavid@gmail.com
CAVCO INDUSTRIES: Rosen Law Investigates Possible Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
its investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Cavco Industries, Inc. (NASDAQ: CVCO) resulting
from allegations that Cavco may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Cavco 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=7555 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 November 8, 2018, Cavco revealed in an SEC
filing that it had "received a subpoena from the SEC's Division of
Enforcement requesting certain documents relating to, among other
items, trading in the stock of another public company." On this
news, Cavco share price fell $49.48 per share, or over 23%, to
close at $165.20 per share on November 9, 2018.
On February 4, 2019, Cavco revealed that it had received requests
for additional documents. Cavco further disclosed that it spent,
and expected to spend, millions of dollars on legal and insurance
expenses in relation to the SEC's subpoenas and Cavco's independent
investigation into the matter. On this news, Cavco's share price
fell $26.92 per share, or about 16.7%, to close at $134.37 per
share on February 5, 2019.
On September 2, 2021, the SEC filed a complaint against Cavco,
former CEO Joseph Stegmayer, and former CFO and Chief Compliance
Officer Daniel Urness. The SEC complaint alleged that Stegmayer and
Urness caused Cavco to purchase shares of publicly traded companies
on material non-public information. On this news, Cavco's share
price fell $6.59 per share, or about 2.5%, to close at $252.48 per
share on September 3, 2021.
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.
Contact:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
CHOCOLATIER INC: Morales Seeks to Certify Two Classes
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALY MORALES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. K.
CHOCOLATIER INC., d/b/a DIANE KRON CHOCOLATIER, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-08522-ODW-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting class certification in this case, on the
grounds that all the prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, including
both Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) have been satisfied.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of two classes:
-- A Nationwide class defined as "all 17 legally blind
individuals who have attempted to access Defendant's
website by the use of a screen reading software during the
applicable limitations period up to and including final
judgment in this action"; and
-- A California class defined as "all legally blind
individuals in the State of California who have attempted
to access Defendant's website by the use of a screen
reading software during the applicable limitations period
up to and including final judgment in this action."
The Plaintiff contends that she meets the criteria for class
certification of this matter brought against the Defendant K.
Chocolatier Inc. The Defendant created and knowingly operates
https://www.dianekron.com/ through which Defendant ships carefully
molded and top-quality chocolates throughout the United States in
conjunction with its two brick-and-mortar stores located in Los
Angeles County.
Morales, who is legally blind and must use screen-readers to access
websites, alleges Defendant is in violation of Morales' civil
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the
Unruh Civil Rights Act as a result of Defendant's failure to
properly code its Website so that Plaintiff's screen-reader
properly reads aloud nonvisual elements of the Website -- thereby
denying her access to the goods and services of Defendant's
brick-and-mortar stores.
Chocolatier sells candy and chocolate online or in its retail
location in Bloomington, Illinois.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify classes dated July 19,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oGnJqR
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com
CORSAIR GAMING: Court Narrows Claims in McKinney Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO MCKINNEY, and
CLINT SUNDEEN, each individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Corsair Gaming, Inc., Case No.
3:22-cv-00312-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Charles R. Breyer
entered an order:
-- granting Corsair's motion to dismiss as to the claims based
on online advertising, the omission claims, the request for
equitable relief, the negligent misrepresentation claims,
and the class claims as to products not bought by the
plaintiffs;
-- denying the motion as to the breach of warranty claims, the
misrepresentation claims based on statements on the
packaging, and class claims brought under the laws of other
states; and
-- granting leave to amend all but the negligent
misrepresentation claims. The Plaintiffs may file an
amended complaint within 21 days of the date of this order.
The Court said, "Although the Plaintiffs vaguely allege that the
misrepresentations on different memory products are similar, they
do not do so with enough specificity. They allege that "Corsair's
packaging lists the speed (in MHz) on the front." The Plaintiffs
also allege generally that "Corsair's packaging and ads promise
specific high speeds and reliability, and omit any warning about
the risks and realities of overclocking." The Plaintiffs allege
that with respect to the class, each putative member "was presented
with similar misrepresentations and omissions by Corsair." Yet
these allegations are conclusory. At a minimum, Plaintiffs must
allege which other models ran at lower speeds. Without doing so, it
is implausible that plaintiffs could, "by establishing that any of
the labels were misleading, necessarily establish that they all
were." Accordingly, the Court strikes the class claims to the
extent they refer to products that the Plaintiffs did not buy."
The Plaintiffs McKinney and Sundeen are citizens of California who
purchased Corsair memory products. The Plaintiffs bring this
putative class action on behalf of themselves and all consumers who
purchased Corsair's high-speed memory products in the United
States.
The Defendant Corsair is a company headquartered in California and
incorporated in Delaware, and it sells "premium, high-speed
computer memory."
Corsair is an American computer peripherals and hardware company
headquartered in Fremont, California.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ozEbZY at no extra charge.[CC]
CSAA GENERAL: Amended Rule 16 Scheduling Order Entered in Franklin
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kay Franklin v. CSAA
General Insurance Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-00540-JJT (D. Ariz.),
the Hon. Judge John J. Tuchi entered an amended Rule 16 scheduling
order as follows:
-- Motion for Class Certification Nov. 4, 2022
due no later than:
Response due no later than: Nov. 18, 2022
Reply due no later than: Dec. 2, 2022
-- Fact discovery shall be completed by: Feb. 24, 2023
-- All parties shall disclose the April 7, 2023
identity of all persons whom they
may call at trial to present
evidence under Rules 702, 703, 704,
or 705 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence no later than:
-- All parties shall disclose the May 19, 2023
identity of all persons providing
rebuttal expert testimony
no later than:
-- All discovery must be completed by: Aug. 28, 2023
-- All dispositive motions, including Oct. 27, 2023
Daubert motions, shall be filed
no later than:
CSAA Insurance is a top personal lines property and casualty
insurance company in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vpsA3g at no extra charge.[CC]
CSL PLASMA: To Pay $9.9M to Settle Suit Over Biometric Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland of Cook County Record (Illinois) reports that CSL
Plasma has agreed to pay $9.9 million to settle a class action that
alleged it violated state biometrics privacy laws when collecting
fingerprint scans from donors.
U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang filed an order June 8 granting
preliminary approval of the settlement, the latest development in a
series of Biometric Information Privacy Act litigation involving
blood and plasma collectors
The CSL Plasma settlement pool will include a group of nearly
75,000 people who provided a fingerprint scan at a CSL donation
office from Sept. 5, 2014, through Oct. 16, 2019.
Other plasma collectors BioLife and Octapharma already settled
similar lawsuits. Octapharma established a $9.9 million settlement
fund for almost 77,000 members, while BioLife had a class of more
than 57,000 donors and a settlement of almost $6 million.
Plaintiffs' attorneys have estimated the settlement could pay out
between $433-$578 per claimant. How much each class member collects
depends on how many of the 75,000 class members submit valid
claims. Attorneys said a 15% claim rate would result in $578 per
claimant, while a 20% rate would yield about $433. Class members
have until Nov. 3 to file their claim. They will be able to file
through the mail or online, and can choose to be paid by paper
check or electronically
The settlement class is represented by attorney David Fish, of the
firm of Fish Potter Bolaños, of Naperville. Also representing
plaintiffs have been attorneys from the St. Louis firm of Pfeiffer
Wolf Carr & Kane. The class representatives are Jada Marsh and
Charles Hilson, who initiated the lawsuit on Sept. 5, 2019, and are
in line for $5,000 incentive awards.
The attorneys are asking the court to award up to 35% of the gross
settlement fund, as well as litigation expenses, for a total of
roughly $3.5 million. Fish Potter Bolaños also served as class
counsel for the Octapharma and BioLife lawsuits.
According to a May 24 motion from the plaintiffs supporting
approval of the settlement, CSL Plasma didn't disclose to its
donors information about its collection and retention of biometric
data, in part because it never developed a formal policy. The
company also allegedly failed to obtain informed written consent to
use donors' fingerprints.
CSL Plasma operates donation centers in 42 states, including 18 in
Illinois. In the Chicago area, CSL Plasma operates four centers in
Chicago, as well as locations in Melrose Park, Hazel Crest,
Waukegan, Calumet Park, Joliet and Montgomery.
CSL maintains it never violated BIPA and has argued it isn't
subject to the BIPA law's regulations.
The plaintiffs' lawyers said CSL Plasma could have argued Food and
Drug Admonistration oversight and federal law pre-empts application
of the state-law BIPA to its facilities in this context, or it
could have been the first entity to get an appellate court to weigh
in on whether plasma donor centers qualify for BIPA exemptions
afforded to health care settings.
Judge Chang set a final approval hearing for Dec. 8.
CSL Plasma is represented in the matter by attorney Gerald Maatman,
of the firm of Seyfarth Shaw, of Chicago. [GN]
DAL GLOBAL: Fine Sues Over Failure to Provide Seat at Workstation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER FINE, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAL GLOBAL SERVICES, INC., a
Delaware corporation; UNIFI AVIATION, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 22STCV23857 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 25, 2022)
brings this complaint to recover unpaid wages and penalties under
California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Customer Service
Representative from approximately July 2019 until on or about
September 15, 2021
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants of failing to provide her and
other aggrieved employees with suitable seating for use during the
performance of their work. Although the Plaintiff could reasonably
have performed many of her duties while sitting in a seat, at no
time did the Defendants provide seating near her workstation during
her employment.
Dal Global Services, Inc. and UNIFI Aviation, LLC are aviation
ground handling services providers, providing services such as
aircraft ground handling, aircraft maintenance, cargo handling, and
many other aviation-related services at airports throughout
California and the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
Milan Moore, Esq.
LIDMAN LAW, APC
2155 Campus Drive, Suite 150
El Segundo, CA 90245
Tel: (424) 322-4772
Fax: (424) 322-4775
E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
enguyen@lidmanlaw.com
mmoore@lidmanlaw.com
- and –
Paul K. Haines, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
El Segundo, CA 90245
Tel: (424) 292-2350
Fax: (424) 292-2355
E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
DEUTSCHE BANK: Karimi Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALI KARIMI, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DEUTSCHE BANK
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, JOHN CRYAN, AND CHRISTIAN SEWING, Case No.
1:22-cv-02854-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Lead Plaintiff Yun Wang and
Plaintiff Ali Karimi move the Court for an Order:
1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 23(a) and 23(b)
(3) and certifying the Class;
2. appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives pursuant to
Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3); and
3. appointing Lead Counsel Pomerantz LLP as Class Counsel
pursuant to Rule 23(g).
Deutsche Bank is a German multinational investment bank and
financial services company headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 18, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ozuwlZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Emma Gilmore, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
Emma Gilmore, Esq.
Dolgora Dorzhieva, Esq.
Villi Shteyn, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
egilmore@pomlaw.com
ddorzhieva@pomlaw.com
vshteyn@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
Eitan Kimelman, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ &
GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
eitank@bgandg.com
DIGNITY CARE: Parties File Stipulation to Adopt FLSA Collective
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANYA AHRAM, AARON
RODRIGUEZ, and MEGAN FACEY on their own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. DIGNITY CARE, LLC and MARY KIRK, Case
No. 1:21-cv-02990-SKC (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order adopting their stipulation to the conditional
collective action certification of Plaintiffs' claims brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and to
dissemination of the form of notice.
In the operative Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs pleaded
substantial allegations of Defendants' company-wide violations of
the FLSA. For example, the Plaintiffs pleaded that "Defendants
refused to pay their caregivers and schedulers overtime rates for
overtime hours worked, for overtime hours worked in the aggregate
as schedulers and caregivers, and as a result of misclassifying
caregivers as independent contractors."
The Plaintiffs detailed their allegations by, for example, pleading
that "Plaintiff Ahram worked from 8:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. on July
19, 2021 as a scheduler, then from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. into July
20, 2021 as a caregiver, then from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on July
20, 2021 as a scheduler and 6:30 p.m. until 8:00 a.m. as a
caregiver into July 21, 2021 and 8:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. as a
scheduler that day.
The Defendants allegedly did not pay overtime wages for any of
these hours worked." The Plaintiffs further pleaded that
"Defendants refused to pay their employees for of these hours
worked.
Dignity Care is a highly respected, licensed private pay home care
agency servicing Boulder County and the surrounded areas, including
Broomfield.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BlH209 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew H. Turner, Esq.
MILSTEIN TURNER , PLLC
1490 Lafayette St. #304
Denver, CO. 80218
Telephone: (303) 305-8230
E-mail: andrew@milsteinturner.com
- and -
Brandt Milstein, Esq.
MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC
2400 Broadway, Suite B
Boulder, CO 80302
Telephone: (303) 440-8780
E-mail: brandt@milsteinturner.com
- and -
John-Paul C. Sauer, Esq.
GOODSPEED MERRILL
7800 East Union Ave., Suite 600
Denver, CO 80237
Telephone: (720) 943-9033
E-mail: jsauer@goodspeedmerrill.com
The Defendants are represented by:
John-Paul C. Sauer, Esq.
GOODSPEED MERRILL
7800 East Union Ave., Suite 600
Denver, CO 80237
Telephone: (720) 943-9033
E-mail: jsauer@goodspeedmerrill.com
DOORDASH INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Binbek Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
ASHA BINBEK, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOORDASH, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-03729 (N.D. Ill., July 19, 2022) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
DOORDASH, INC. provides restaurant food delivery services. The
Company develops technology to connect customers with merchants
through an on-demand food delivery application. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
Email: tom@attorneyzim.com
sharon@attorneyzim.com
matt@attorneyzim.com
jeff@attorneyzim.com
DRAPER AND KRAMER: Loses Bid to Junk Vasquez Class Status Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jose Vasquez v. Draper and
Kramer Mortgage Corp., Case No. 2:21-cv-00693-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order that the motion
to deny class certification is denied without prejudice.
Draper and Kramer is a property and financial services provider
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PYHNjD at no extra charge.[CC]
DSW HOMES: Faces Trejo Suit Over Project Managers' Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SHERYL TREJO, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. DSW HOMES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00267 (S.D. Tex., July 25, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's alleged unlawful policy of paying its employees in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendant as a Project
Manager, claims that she and other similarly situated Project
Managers were misclassified by the Defendant as exempt from
overtime. Although they were routinely scheduled by the Defendant
to work fifty to sixty hours a week, they were not paid any
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, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated Project Managers
to recover all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and other relief to which they may show themselves to be
justly entitled.
DSW Homes, LLC provides residential rehabilitation, reconstruction,
replacement, and demolition services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
TRAN LAW FIRM
2537 S. Gessner Road, Suite 104
Houston, TX 77063
Tel: (713) 223-8855
E-mail: trang@tranlf.com
service@tranlf.com
ECP-PF CT: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Oldacre Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER OLDACRE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ECP-PF CT OPERATIONS INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00577 (W.D.N.Y., July 25, 2022) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Front Desk
Associate from approximately October 2021 to January 2022 at a
Planet Fitness location in Cheektowaga, New York.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees were paid by the Defendant every other week,
instead of paying them on a weekly basis, throughout their
employment with the Defendant. Due to the Defendant's failure to
timely pay wages, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees have been injured because they were temporarily deprived
of their lawfully earned money, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendant the amount of his
and other similarly situated employees' untimely paid wages as
liquidated damages, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
ECP-PF Ct Operations Inc. owns and operates a chain of Planet
Fitness locations in the New York State. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew M. Debbins, Esq.
CONNORS LLP
1000 Liberty Building
Buffalo, NY 14202
Tel: (716) 852-5533
E-mail: amd@connorsllp.com
- and –
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Tel: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
EDUCATION CREDIT: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due May 10, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned asSHEILA KINCAID,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
an unknown business entity; and ECMC GROUP, an unknown business
entity, Case No. 2:21-cv-00863-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Troy L. Nunley entered an amended pretrial scheduling order as
follows:
-- All discovery in Phase I shall be February 10, 2023
limited to facts that are relevant
to whether this action should be
certified as a class action and
shall be completed by:
-- All counsel are to designate in March 10, 2023
writing, file with the Court,
and serve upon all other parties
the name, address, and area of
expertise of each expert that
they propose to tender at class
certification not later than:
-- Motion for Class Certification May 10, 2023
shall be filed by:
Educational Credit Management Corporation is a United States
nonprofit corporation based in Minnesota.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S9p9Ya at no extra charge.[CC]
EVERGLADES COLLEGE: Leigue FTSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARIA FERNANDA SOTO LEIGUE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVERGLADES
COLLEGE, INC. d/b/a KEISER UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
20.22-008872-CA-01, was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 22,
2022.
The clerk of the court for the Southern District of Florida
assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-22307-XXXX.
The case alleges violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation
Act.
Everglades College, Inc. d/b/a Keiser University is a private
university with its main campus in Fort Lauderdale, Florida and
flagship residential campus in West Palm Beach, Florida. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Maria K. Vigilante, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
Broward Financial Centre
500 East Broward Blvd., Suite 2100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
Tel: (954) 512-1800
Fax: (813) 433-5564
E-mail: Maria.Vigilante@blankrome.com
- and –
Justin C. Sorel, Esq.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
Esperante Building
222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 120
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Tel: (561) 383-9200
Fax: (561) 683-8977
E-mail: Justin.Sorel@csklegal.com
FARAZLI MEDICINE: Judge Certifies Suit Over Infection Controls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Duffy of Ottawa Citizen reports that an Ottawa judge has
certified a class-action lawsuit against a now-closed Carling
Avenue endoscopy clinic that caused a large public health scare due
to poor infection controls.
Superior Court Justice Calum MacLeod's decision earlier this month
ill allow the lawsuit against the Farazli Medicine Professional
Corporation to proceed more than 10 years after it was first
filed.
An initial certification motion was denied, but that decision was
overturned on appeal.
"This is a case in which there was a mass wrong affecting thousands
of individuals," MacLeod said in finding the case ideally suited to
the Class Proceedings Act.
The case involves 6,800 patients from the private endoscopy clinic
operated by former Ottawa gastroenterologist Dr. Christiane
Farazli.
Most of those patients will advance modest damage claims, MacLeod
said, for the health risks and anxiety caused by the use of
unsterilized endoscopic and biopsy equipment at the clinic, which
operated between 2002 and 2011.
Farazli was reprimanded by the Ontario College of Physicians and
Surgeons in July 2014 for disregarding the safety of patients and
ignoring fundamental principles of sterilization.
The discipline committee said Farazli put her patients at risk of
acquiring hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV through her
"unconscionable disregard for infection control."
"Not only did you subject your patients to a very real risk of
significant harm, your actions resulted in emotional distress and
anxiety for thousands of patients as well as major costs to society
for the investigations of blood-borne diseases that were
subsequently necessary," the discipline committee said in its
public rebuke of the doctor.
At that discipline hearing, Farazli agreed never to practice
medicine again.
The case involves 6,800 patients from the private endoscopy clinic
operated by former Ottawa gastroenterologist Dr. Christiane
Farazli.
In May 2011, an inspection by the college discovered serious lapses
in infection control at her Carling Avenue clinic. Investigators
found that the clinic re-used products designed for one-time use
and did not properly sterilize endoscopy devices used in
gastroscopies and colonoscopies. (The devices were disinfected, but
not sterilized.)
After the clinic failed inspection, Ottawa Public Health sent 6,800
letters to people treated at the clinic, urging them to be tested
for HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. About three-quarters of those
patients went for testing.
Some patients tested positive for one of the blood-borne diseases,
but DNA analysis of the infections was unable to confirm a link to
the clinic.
The province later reimbursed Ottawa Public Health $730,000 for
costs related to the mass public notification.
An Ottawa woman, Fern McGee, is the representative plaintiff in the
class-action lawsuit. A former patient at the Farazli clinic, she
went for testing after being contacted by Ottawa Public Health.
She did not test positive for a blood-borne infection, but wants
compensation for "exposure to enhance risk of infection and for the
shock, trauma and inconvenience inherent in responding to the
public health notice."
Her lawyer, Evatt Merchant, contends all members of the proposed
class suffered similar damages and are entitled to compensation
"whether or not the risk of infection materialized."
Justice MacLeod said that would be a central question at trial:
whether Farazli and her clinic can be held liable for the anxiety
and inconvenience caused patients absent any evidence of serious
infections.
Farazli's lawyers are also expected to argue that, for much of the
time in question, there were no clear standards for disinfecting
and sterilizing equipment used in endoscopy clinics.
It was not until 2010 that the provincial government introduced
safety standards for private surgical clinics and gave the College
of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario the power to inspect those
clinics. The inspection of Farazli's clinic happened after that
legislation came into effect. [GN]
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Conditional Certification in Fischer Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTA B. FISCHER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES, Appellant v. FEDERAL EXPRESS
CORP.; FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, Case No. 21-1683 (3d Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirms the District
Court's order certifying the collective action and authorizing
notice with respect to security specialists employed by FedEx in
Pennsylvania.
Appellant Fischer, a Pennsylvania resident who worked for nearly 10
years as a security specialist for Appellees Federal Express and
FedEx Ground, brought the collective action under Section 216(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on Oct. 22, 2019. Fischer alleges FedEx misclassified
her and other FedEx security specialists as exempt from the FLSA's
overtime rule and underpaid them.
Under the FLSA's collective action device in 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b), Fischer brought her suit on behalf of herself and "other
similarly situated employees," alleging FedEx had misclassified
these employees around the country. FedEx is incorporated in
Delaware and its principal place of business is in Tennessee. On
May 15, 2020, Fischer filed a motion for conditional certification
and court-authorized notice.
On July 17, 2020 and July 28, 2020, respectively, Andre Saunders,
from Maryland, and Andrew Rakowsky, from New York, submitted
notices of consent to join the litigation. Neither Saunders nor
Rakowsky worked for FedEx in Pennsylvania. And neither has alleged
any other connections to FedEx in Pennsylvania. The District Court
did not allow these two opt-in plaintiffs to join the suit,
reasoning that, as would be true for a state court under
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct., ___ U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct.
1773 (2017), the district court lacked specific personal
jurisdiction over FedEx with respect to the out-of-state
plaintiffs' claims.
On Dec. 23, 2020, the trial judge granted Fischer's motion for
conditional certification. It held that, because no federal statute
authorizes nationwide service of process for opt-in plaintiffs in
FLSA collective actions, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A) requires a
federal court to follow the personal jurisdiction rules applicable
to a state court, including the requirement clarified in
Bristol-Myers that all claims must arise out of or relate to the
defendants' minimum contacts with the forum state. Considering the
facts, the District Court concluded it lacked personal jurisdiction
over FedEx with respect to the putative opt-in plaintiffs who
worked for FedEx outside Pennsylvania. Accordingly, it only
certified the collective action and authorized notice with respect
to security specialists employed by FedEx in Pennsylvania.
The Plaintiffs now appeal that decision, arguing that the District
Court erred in applying Bristol-Myers to the FLSA collective action
because it was filed in federal court.
The Third Circuit granted the Appellants' petition for
interlocutory appeal to resolve whether, in an FLSA collective
action in federal court where the court lacks general personal
jurisdiction over the defendant, all opt-in plaintiffs must
establish specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant with
respect to their individual claims.
The Sixth Circuit in Canaday v. Anthem Cos., 9 F.4th 392 (6th Cir.
2021), and the Eighth Circuit Vallone v. CJS Sols. Grp., LLC, 9
F.4th 861 (8th Cir. 2021), have answered in the affirmative,
holding FLSA opt-in plaintiffs' claims must arise out of or relate
to the defendant's minimum contacts with the forum state. The First
Circuit, in Waters v. Day & Zimmermann NPS, Inc., 23 F.4th 84 (1st
Cir. 2022), has answered in the negative, holding that, while
initial plaintiffs' claims must arise out of or relate to the
defendant's minimum contacts with the forum state -- the test of
the constitutional limit under the Fourteenth Amendment—opt-in
plaintiffs' claims need only arise out of or relate to a
defendant's minimum contacts with the entire nation -- the test of
the constitutional limit under the Fifth Amendment.
The Third Circuit joins the Sixth and Eighth Circuits and holds
that, where the basis of personal jurisdiction in an FLSA
collective action in a federal court is specific personal
jurisdiction established by serving process according to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(A), every plaintiff who seeks to
opt in to the suit must demonstrate his or her claim arises out of
or relates to the defendant's minimum contacts with the forum
state. In this way, the specific personal jurisdiction analysis for
an FLSA collective action in federal court operates the same as it
would for an FLSA collective action, or any other traditional in
personam suit, in state court. Accordingly, it affirms the District
Court's judgment because the out-of-state opt-in plaintiffs cannot
demonstrate their claims arise out of or relate to FedEx's contacts
with Pennsylvania.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycyma8rw from Leagle.com.
Kelly A. Burgy -- kaburgy@nicholllaw.com -- Benjamin L. Davis, III
-- bdavis@nicholllaw.com -- Scott E. Nevin, Suite 1700, 36 South
Charles Street, in Baltimore, Maryland 21201.
Adam W. Hansen -- adam@apollo-law.com -- [ARGUED] Apollo Law, 333
Washington Avenue North, Suite 300, in Minneapolis, Minnesota
55401.
Colin R. Reeves -- colin@apollo-law.com -- Apollo Law, 1314 Pacific
Street, in Brooklyn, New York 11216, Scott M. Pollins, 800 Westdale
Avenue, in Swarthmore, Pennsylvania 19081, Counsel for Appellants
Christa B. Fischer and Andre Saunders.
Scott L. Nelson -- litigation@citizen.org -- Public Citizen
Litigation Group, 1600 20th Street, N.W., in Washington, D.C.
20009, Counsel for Amicus Appellant Public Citizen Inc.
Frederick L. Douglas -- frederick.douglas@fedex.com -- [ARGUED]
Brandon D. Pettes, Federal Express Corporation, 3620 Hacks Cross
Road Building B, 3rd Floor, in Memphis, Tennessee 38125, Counsel
for Appellee Federal Express Corp.
Benjamin Ferron, Esq., FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 1000
FedEx Drive, in Moon Township, Pennsylvania 15108, Counsel for
Appellee FedEx Ground Package System.
David R. Fine -- david.fine@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, 17 North
Second Street, 18th Floor, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101,
Counsel for Amicus Appellee Chamber of Commerce of the United
States of America.
Philip S. Goldberg, Esq. -- pgoldberg@shb.com -- Shook Hardy &
Bacon, 1800 K. Street, NW, Suite 1000, in Washington, D.C. 20006,
Counsel for Amicus Appellee International Association of Defense
Counsel.
FIRST ORDER: Seeks August 10 Extension to File Class Cert Response
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peacock v. First Order
Pizza, LLC,m et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02315-SHM-tmp (W.D.Tenn.),
the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending, up to and
including August 10, 2022, within which to respond to Plaintiff's
Motion for Conditional Certification.
The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on May 20, 2022 in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.
On July 6, 2022, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and
Compel Arbitration. The same day, Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Conditional of FLSA Collective Action.
On July 8, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Plaintiff's
Motion for Conditional Certification, pending the resolution of
Defendants' dispositive motion.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 18, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OFtVtI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
- and -
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Riley E. Kane, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
rkane@billerkimble.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Courtney Leyes, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
3310 West End Avenue, Suite 500
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 488-2900
Facsimile: (615) 488-2928
E-mail: cleyes@fisherphillips.com
FIRST ORDER: Time to Respond to Class Cert Bid Extended
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peacock v. First Order
Pizza, LLC, et al., Case No. (), the Hon. Judge Samuel H. Mays
entered an order granting the defendants' motion for an extension
of time to respond to plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification.
The Defendants shall have up to and including August 10, 2022 to
respond to Plaintiff's Motion, Judge Mays says.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oDyPNl at no extra charge.[CC]
FLOWERS FOODS: Seeks Reconsideration of July 5, 2022 Order
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL LUDLOW,
individually and on behalf of others similarly-situated;
and WILLIAM LANCASTER, individually and on behalf of others
similarly-situated, v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., a Georgia
corporation; FLOWERS BAKERIES, LLC, a Georgia limited liability 24
company; and FLOWERS FINANCE, LLC, a limited liability company,
Case No. 3:18-cv-01190-JO-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the
Court to enter an reconsidering the Court's July 5, 2022 Order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
By way of this Motion, the Defendants also asks the Court to:
-- reconsider the Order in light of Bowerman v. Field Asset
Services, Inc., 2022 WL 2433971 (9th Cir. 2022);
-- to reconsider the Order regarding the Defendants'
affirmative defenses, the UCL claim and its findings
regarding superiority, and deny Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.
Flowers Foods, headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia, is a producer
and marketer of packed bakery food. The company operates 47
bakeries producing bread, buns, rolls, snack cakes, pastries, and
tortillas.
A copy of Defendants' motion dated July 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Bmh7Ft at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Frank L. Tobin, Esq.
Kevin P. Hishta, Esq.
Jared L. Palmer, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (858) 652-3100
Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
E-mail: frank.tobin@ogletree.com
kevin.hishta@ogletree.com
jared.palmer@ogletree.com
FORD MOTOR: Seeks August 4 Extension to Reply to Tucker Opposition
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL TUCKER v. FORD
MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 4:22-cv-00430-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order granting Ford an extension of time
to Reply until the end of the day on August 4, 2022.
Ford's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Ford's Motion to Deny
Class Certification and Strike Class Allegations is due July 25,
2022 per the Case Management Order.
Due to a variety of factors, including the Court's Order dated July
18, 2022 regarding redacting numerous exhibits Plaintiff filed
under seal, Ford requires an additional 10 days -- through end of
day on August 4, 2022—to prepare and file the Reply.
Accordingly, Ford respectfully requests an extension of time to
file its Reply to and through the end of day on August 4, 2022.
Ford is not making this motion for reasons of delay. No other
deadlines in the Case Management Order need to be moved as a result
of this requested extension.
Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, United States. It was founded
by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903. The company sells
automobiles and commercial vehicles under the Ford brand, and
luxury cars under its Lincoln luxury brand.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 19, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S9p5b7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Laura K. Brooks, Esq.
Stephen Bledsoe, Esq.
BERKOWITZ OLIVER LLP
2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 561-7007
Facsimile: (816) 561-1888
E-mail: lbrooks@berkowitzoliver.com
sbledsoe@berkowitzoliver.com
- and -
John M. Thomas, Esq.
Krista L. Lenart, Esq.
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
2723 South State Street, Suite 400
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (734) 214-7660
E-mail: jthomas@dykema.com
klenart@dykema.com
GEICO CASUALTY: Class Cert Order in Wright Suit Held in Abeyance
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLA WRIGHT v. GEICO
CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00823-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La.), the
Hon. Judge Brian A. Jackson entered an order granting the joint
motion to hold class certification order in abeyance.
The Court further ordered that the Court will withold a ruling on
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification until Aug. 31,2022.
GEICO operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BqqtjQ at no extra charge.[CC]
GREENE KLEEN: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Garcia Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREENE KLEEN OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC.; CIRA
FIGUEROA; and ANTHONY FIGUEROA, Defendants, Case No.
0:22-cv-61374-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 22, 2022) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Garcia was employed by the Defendants as maintenance
worker.
GREENE KLEEN OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC. is a full-service commercial
cleaning company providing personalized, quality, environmentally
conscious janitorial services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Freddy Perera, Esq.
Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
PERERA ALEMAN, P.A.
12505 Orange Drive Suite 908
Davie, FL 33330
Telephone: (786) 485-5232
Email: freddy@pba-law.com
brody@pba-law.com
GROSS SKINCARE: Seeks Leave to File Documents Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOCHA GUNARATNA and RENEE
CAMENFORTE individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. DR. DENNIS GROSS SKINCARE, LLC, a New York Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-02311-MWF-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the
Defendant submit an application for leave to file under seal the
following documents to the Declaration of Steven W. Garff:
-- Exhibit E: C+ California Sales Data, Garff Bates Stamped
DG02324
-- Exhibit G: Early Concepts slides, Bates Stamped DG01496-
01499
-- Exhibit I: February 2016 Email Chain Regarding Name
Selection, Bates Stamped The emails contains
DG02783-02789.
-- Exhibit J: Defendant's List of Alternative Product Names,
Bates Stamped The email provides DG01596-01601,
1603
Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare, LLC offers beauty products.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 19, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oEO9sS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Stephen Y. Ma, Esq.
Lisa L. Boswell, Esq.
EARLY SULLIVAN WRIGHT
GIZER & McRAE LLP
6420 Wilshire Boulevard, 17th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (323) 301-4660
Facsimile: (323) 301-4676
E-mail: sma@earlysullivan.com
lboswell@earlysullivan.com
- and -
Steven Garff, Esq.
Jason M. Kerr, Esq.
David Parkinson, Esq.
PRICE PARKINSON & KERR, PLLC
5742 West Harold Gatty Drive Suite 101
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Telephone: (801) 530-2900
E-mail: steven.garff@ppktrial.com
jasonkerr@ppktrial.com
davidparkinson@ppktrial.com
H&M HENNES: Commodore Sues Over Mislabeled Products in Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHELSEA COMMODORE individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. H&M HENNES & MAURITZ LP,
Defendant, Case No. 7:22-cv-06247-CS (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant's labeling, marketing, and
advertising that is designed to mislead consumers about its
products' environmental attributes, through the use of false and
misleading "environmental scorecards" for its products called
"Sustainability Profiles."
According to the complaint, the Sustainability Profiles were
prominently incorporated into H&M's website and were displayed on
the product listing for hundreds of H&M items. However, on June 28,
2022, an independent investigation revealed that H&M's
Sustainability Profiles contained falsified information that did
not comport with the underlying data, says the suit.
The Defendant takes advantage of consumers' interest in products
that are sustainable and that do not harm the environment. By
falsifying the Sustainability Profiles and making the
Sustainability Misrepresentations, Defendant has misrepresented the
nature of its products, at the expense of consumers who pay a price
premium in the belief that they are buying truly sustainable and
environmentally friendly clothing, the suit asserts.
H&M HENNES & MAURITZ LP retails apparels and cosmetic products. The
Company offers shirts, blouses, pants, shorts, skirts, lingerie,
swim wear, sleep wear, socks, shoes, jackets, coats, blazers,
waistcoats, sweaters, and accessories to teenagers, men, women, and
children. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Elvia M. Lopez, Esq.
Sean L. Litteral, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
ndeckant@bursor.com
elopez@bursor.com
slitteral@bursor.com
HOME DEPOT: Almanzar Provisional Class Status Bid Partly OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE ALMANZAR, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A.,
INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00699-KJN (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Kendall J. Newman entered an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion
for provisional class certification and preliminary
approval of settlement;
2. denying as moot the Plaintiffs request for a ruling on the
above motion;
3. granting provisional certification, for settlement
purposes only, of the following settlement class as set
forth in the proposed settlement agreement;
"All current and former non-exempt, hourly Night Team
Merchandising Execution Associates who worked for Home
Depot in California between April 3, 2016 and November 1,
2021."
4. appointing Plaintiff's counsel, The Markham Law Firm, as
class counsel for settlement purposes;
5. appointing the named plaintiff, Jorge Almanzar, as class
representative for settlement purposes;
6. denying without prejudice preliminary approval of the
settlement; and
7. granting the Plaintiff leave to amend the Settlement
Agreement to address the court’s concerns.
The Settlement Agreement provides for $37,500 in PAGA penalties,
out of the gross settlement amount of $750,000. Class counsel
estimates that the maximum PAGA penalties plaintiff could recover
at trial for the direct claims only is $8,051,200. Based on these
numbers, the recovery for PAGA penalties would be 5% of the gross
settlement amount, and roughly 0.5% of Home Depot's maximum PAGA
liability stemming from the direct claims.
The Plaintiff worked for defendant Home Depot from June 2018 to
April 2020 as a non-exempt, hourly-paid Night Team Merchandising
Execution Associate. Night Team MEAs' job duties included stocking
and merchandising products at Home Depot's stores.
The Plaintiff worked 10-hour shifts four days a week, with three to
four shifts per week spent traveling between Home Depot stores. On
April 3, 2020, plaintiff filed this putative class action against
Home Depot on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
current and former Night Team MEAs.
Home Depot is an American multinational home improvement retail
corporation that sells tools, construction products, appliances,
and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ODqfsh at no extra charge.[CC]
HOME DEPOT: N.D. California Allows Utne to File Fifth Amended Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN UTNE, Plaintiff v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-01854-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard
Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an order granting:
a. the Defendant's motion to dismiss, and
b. the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Fifth Amended
Complaint.
In this wage and hour class action, the Defendant brings a motion
to dismiss a claim that has been part of the lawsuit since its
inception more than six years ago. It argues that the Plaintiff
lacks standing to bring Count Three or the "waiting time" claim,
which avers a failure to pay timely all final wages in violation of
California Labor Code Sections 201-203. In what is essentially a
concession that named Plaintiff's claim under Count Three may be
deficient, the Plaintiff brings a motion for leave to file a Fifth
Amended Complaint to add a new named plaintiff.
In March 2016, Utne filed suit against Home Depot in the Superior
Court of California seeking recovery of unpaid wages and derivative
penalties on behalf of himself and other Home Depot store employees
in California. The action was subsequently removed to federal
court.
The operative Fourth Amended Complaint advances five claims under
California Law for (1) failure to pay hourly and overtime wages,
Cal. Lab. Code Sections 223, 510, 1194, 1197, 1198; (2) failure to
provide accurate written wage statements, id. Section 226; (3)
failure timely to pay all wages at the termination of employment,
id. Section 201-203; (4) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.; and
(5) civil penalties arising from Home Depot's alleged violation of
various provisions of the state labor code, Cal. Lab. Code Section
2698 et seq.
On March 30, 2018, two classes were certified:
(1) a Lock-In Class made up of "all individuals employed by
Home Depot in hourly-paid or non-exempt positions in Home Depot
stores in California at any time since March 8, 2012, and who
worked at least one shift ending after the time that the Home Depot
store was scheduled to close to the public for the evening," and
(2) an Hourly Employee Class made up of "all individuals
employed by Home Depot in hourly paid or non-exempt positions in
California at any time since March 8, 2012."
On July 11, 2019, partial summary judgment was granted to Home
Depot as to the Hourly Employees' waiting time penalties claim and
wage statement penalties claims.
The Court held a motion hearing on May 5, 2022 following the
deadline for the parties to file pretrial motions (aside from
Daubert motions and motions in limine). Among other motions, the
Plaintiff filed a motion to file a Fourth Amended Complaint,
because it appeared an order granting partial summary judgment
dismissed the Private Attorneys General Act claim in its entirety,
when Home Depot had not argued for dismissal of the entire claim.
The Court granted the motion to file the Fourth Amended Complaint,
noting that "the parties' statements about the case also refer to
the summary judgment order as dismissing only the rounding claim,
and reference a live PAGA claim" and "Home Depot has acted all
along as if the PAGA claim was still in the case."
Both the motion to dismiss and the motion for leave file a Fifth
Amended Complaint turn on questions of constitutional and statutory
standing. Home Depot argues that Utne lacks Article III standing to
pursue his waiting time claim, because the statute requires a
person to end his or her employment before filing suit, and Utne
left his job at Home Depot after this suit began. The Plaintiff
argues that any concern about whether Utne may recover for a
violation of section 203 concerns whether he is allowed to recover
under the statute, and is thus a question on the merits.
Judge Seeborg holds that the parties are each partially right and
partially wrong; there are problems with both Article III standing
and statutory standing as to the waiting time claim, but at
different times. In short, Utne gained Article III standing once he
left his employment at Home Depot, but he has never had statutory
standing under section 203 because there was no gap in time between
the end of his employment and the filing of the lawsuit.
In its motion to dismiss, the Defendant argues that Utne lacks
standing to bring his third cause of action to recover "waiting
time" penalties under Labor Code Section 203. It argues that
"because the Plaintiff commenced the action before any final wages
might have been due, he is not eligible to recover 'waiting time'
penalties under Labor Code Section 203."
According to Judge Seeborg, this argument concerns Utne's statutory
standing: Whether he meets the precise requirements of the statute.
The Defendant's motion to dismiss is therefore not properly
characterized as a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, but rather a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim.
As he explained, Utne has never had statutory standing under
section 203 because there was no gap in time between the end of his
employment and the filing of the lawsuit. He therefore has not
stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, and the motion to
dismiss Count Three is granted. To the extent Count Five, his PAGA
claim is predicated on a violation of section 203, the Plaintiff
cannot pursue that theory of violation. He makes no argument that
the portion of the PAGA claim predicated on violations of section
203 could survive if the section 203 claim is dismissed.
In his opposition to the motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff argued
that if the motion is granted, the Court should grant leave to
amend to add an additional representative. At that time, he did not
name a proposed new plaintiff. Two weeks later, he filed a Motion
for Leave to File a Fifth Amended Complaint adding Alfred Pinto as
an additional class representative.
Among other arguments, Home Depot argues that amendment is futile
because Pinto's claims are time-barred. Pinto ended his employment
with Home Depot over seven years ago, in May 2015. The statute of
limitations is three years for a waiting-time penalty claim, and
"such claims typically accrue on the date wages become due." The
Plaintiff argues that Pinto's claims are not time-barred because of
equitable tolling.
Judge Seeborg grants leave to amend. He says, for Pinto to be
appointed as a class representative, the Plaintiff must move for
his appointment, and demonstrate that the adequacy and typicality
requirements are satisfied. Should Pinto be appointed as a class
representative, he may not pursue waiting time claims on behalf of
the class, because the statute of limitations has expired and
equitable tolling does not apply.
Within 14 days, the parties are directed to file a joint statement
before Judge Kim concerning each party's views on what additional
discovery is needed should Pinto be appointed as an additional
class representative and the timeline for conducting said
discovery.
As a final note, Judge Seeborg finds neither side's counsel comes
out of this latest batch of motions looking good. No satisfying
reason has been given for the Defendant's delay in challenging the
section 203 claim. At best, the Defendant failed to identify a
clear problem in the named Plaintiff's Article III and statutory
standing despite years of litigation. At worst, it has
intentionally delayed raising this issue in the hopes of forcing
the Court's hand and removing a potentially meritorious claim from
the case.
The Plaintiff's counsel looks no better, he says, having failed to
research the relevant law at issue and find a suitable class
representative to pursue the claims on behalf of the class.
Further, the Plaintiff even agrees that the Fourth Amended
Complaint contains a material error, i.e. the Complaint's averment
that Utne still works at Home Depot, even though all counsel agree
that as of the time of the filing of the Fourth Amended Complaint,
he no longer did.
Although it is possible that some additional motion practice may be
necessary due to the amendment of the complaint, the counsel is
advised that the tsunami of motions in the case must end. Any
motions that could have been raised earlier will not be viewed
favorably, and sanctions will be considered for tactics used to
delay the close of the litigation.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8eam4y from Leagle.com.
JACK'S EGGS: Faces Garcia Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFONSO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JACK'S EGGS AND OTHER INGREDIENTS, LLC d/b/a
JACK'S EGG FARM, a New York limited liability company, and MORDECAI
NEUSTADT, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04337
(E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2022) brings this complaint against the
Defendants seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to handle heavy
machinery, to assemble large orders, to gather and package gods
including eggs, flour, and sugar, and to load and unload trailers
for approximately 7 years, from 2015 through February 2022.
The Plaintiff claims that he regularly worked 57 to 67 hours per
week or more throughout his employment with the Defendants. He was
never granted by the Defendants a meal breaks or rest period of any
kind. Sometimes he was forced to eat his meals while working.
However, despite working more than 40 hours per week, the
Defendants did not pay him his lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate
of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Instead,
he was paid a flat weekly rate with no pay raises during the term
of his employment. In addition, the Defendants did not pay him the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he worked 10
hours or more. Moreover, the Defendants did not provide him with
wage statements at the time of payment of wages, and a notice at
the time of hiring containing the rate or rates of pay and basis
thereof, says the Plaintiff.
Jack's Eggs and Other Ingredients, LLC is a food supply company.
Mordecai Neustadt owns and operates the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nolan Klein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
5550 Glades Rd., Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Tel: (954) 745-0588
E-mail: klein@nklegal.com
amy@nklegal.com
melanie@nklegal.com
KING'S FOOD: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Abdalla Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MORTADA ABDALLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KING'S FOOD SPOT INC.; YOUSEF AYYAD; FOOD
PLUS ENTERPRISES INC d/b/a Family Food Store; AJA LAND LLC d/b/a
Family Food Store f/k/a AJA LAND NO 2 LLC d/b/a King's Market a/k/a
King Food Spot; and ABDEL ASSAF d/b/a King's Market a/k/a King Food
Spot, Defendants, Case 1:22-cv-22300-XXXX (S.D.Fla., July 22, 2022)
is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff
and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Abdalla was employed by the Defendants as cashier.
KING'S FOOD SPOT INC. operates a convenience store in Miami,
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aron Smukler, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
Email: asmukler@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
LHC GROUP: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due March 31, 2023
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Farmer, et al., v. LHC
Group, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-03838 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order on class certification
deadlines as follows:
-- Class Certification Motion due by: March 31, 2023
-- Discovery due by: March 31, 2023
-- Dispositive motions due by: May 5, 2023
-- Responses in Opposition due by: June 2, 2023
-- Replies due by: June 12, 2023
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
LHC Group is a national provider of in-home healthcare services and
innovations for communities around the nation.[CC]
LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Sept. 2
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARY LEEPER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIGHTHOUSE
INSURANCE GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02821 (N.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Pamela A. Barker entered an order granting the Parties' joint
motion for extension of time to conduct discovery and move for
class certification as follows:
-- The Parties shall have until August 29, 2022, to complete
all discovery.
-- The Plaintiff shall have until September 2, 2022, to move
for class certification.
Lighthouse is a full-service insurance agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cQNjqr at no extra charge.[CC]
LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Time Extension to Conduct Discovery Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARY LEEPER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIGHTHOUSE
INSURANCE GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02821-PAB (N.D. Ohio), the
Parties jointly move the Court for a 28-day extension of time to
the current discovery cut-off date of August 1, 2022, and the
current deadline for Plaintiff to move for class certification by
August 5, 2022.
The Parties continue to devote their efforts towards mediation and
a potential resolution of this case -- as indicated in the previous
motion for extension filed on June 30, 2022, the Parties were
scheduled to participate in a mediation of both this matter and
Joseph Bond and Nicole Thompson v. Lighthouse Insurance Group, LLC
(N.D. Ohio, Case No. 1:20-cv-00677) on July 14, 2022, the lawsuit
says.
However, the mediator informed counsel for the Parties that he had
COVID and was unable to proceed as scheduled. Accordingly, the
Parties are working to reschedule the mediation session. Thus, in
order for the Parties to continue their efforts to resolve the
case, the Parties respectfully request that the Court extend the
discovery cut-off date and deadline for Plaintiff to move for class
certification.
The Parties make this request in good faith and not for the purpose
of unduly delaying the proceedings or any other improper purpose.
Since the Parties have agreed upon the requested extension, no
party will be prejudiced by the granting thereof, the lawsuit
adds.
Lighthouse is a full-service insurance agency.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SarhyT at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Harrelson, Esq.
HARRELSON & HARRELSON, LLP
9 W. Water Street
Troy, OH 45373
Telephone: (937) 552-9400
Facsimile: (937) 552-9361
E-mail: will@harelsonllp.com
- and -
Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
Stephen A. Klein, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 213-0675
Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
sklein@woodrowpeluso.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher B. Congeni, Esq.
Annamarie E. Braga, Esq.
Douglas G. Walters, Esq.
MATASAR JACOBS LLC
1111 Superior Avenue, Suite 1355
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 453-8180
Facsimile: (216) 282-8600
E-mail: ccongeni@matasarjacobs.com
abraga@matasarjacobs.com
dwalters@matasarjacobs.com
LINCARE HOLDINGS: Settles Class Suit Over Data Breach for $875K
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Sweeney, writing for Fierce Healthcare, reports that Lincare
Holdings, the country's largest provider of home respiratory
supplies has agreed to pay $875,000 to settle a class-action
lawsuit from former employees whose information was exposed during
a 2017 data breach.
A copy of the settlement is available at
https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.fiercemarkets.net/public/004-Healthcare/external_Q22018/LincareSettlement.pdf
The settlement resolves a lawsuit filed last fall that claimed
Lincare failed to implement "the most basic security safeguards" to
prevent a breach. A human resources employee fell victim to a
phishing scam in February 2017 in which the sender claimed to be a
Lincare executive asking for employee W-2s.
The Florida-based company provides in-home respiratory therapy
equipment for customers suffering from chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease. Lincare has more than 14,000 employees across
more than 1,000 locations.
A Lincare spokesperson declined to comment.
Although the breach did not involve patient information, it served
as a reminder that healthcare organizations are also susceptible to
breaches involving employees, with significant liability in some
cases.
Lincare offered credit monitoring to employees after the breach was
discovered, but plaintiffs described that as a "minor half-measure
that did not safeguard and protect the [information] already
released."
As part of the settlement, Lincare did not admit to any wrongdoing.
The $875,000 will be divvied up into two funds, with $550,000 to
compensate class members that suffered an out-of-pocket loss and
$325,000 reserved for members that experienced an "eligible
incident," such as a fraudulent tax return, or a fraudulent loan or
credit card.
The settlement comes as healthcare data breaches are drawing more
scrutiny from federal and state regulators. Healthcare companies
are also finding themselves in legal hot water as hacker groups
continue to prey on long-standing vulnerabilities.
A case brought by employees of the University of Pittsburgh Medical
Center has made its way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The
state court will weigh in on whether the provider is responsible
for safeguarding employee information after a 2014 breach exposed
information for 62,000 employees. [GN]
MANNA 2ND AVENUE: Herrera Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bello Herrera, et al., v.
Manna 2nd Avenue LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-11026 (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker entered an order
denying without prejudice motion to certify Class.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]
MARKETSOURCE INC: August 25 Pretrial Scheduling Conference Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brum, et al., v.
MarketSource, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00241 (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Kimberly J. Mueller entered an order that the pretrial
scheduling conference set for August 25, 2022 is vacated in light
of Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and the related extensions
to the briefing schedule.
The suit involves employment discrimination issues.
MarketSource designs and delivers marketing and sales-team
solutions for companies of all sizes.[CC]
MERIDIAN CORP: Hit With Class Action for Alleged Predatory Lending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Syann Thompson, writing for Turks & Caicos Weekly News, reports
that a class action lawsuit against an alleged predatory lender, is
the first of its kind in recent history with hopes to set
precedence in the Turks and Caicos Islands and the Caribbean region
for the financial services industry.
Legal documents filed in the Supreme Court on July 14th, 2022
reveal that lead attorney Beryn Duncanson and others have brought a
class action lawsuit against Meridian Corporation Mortgage Limited,
the Meridian Trust Company Limited, the Meridian Mortgage Fund and
the trust company's Managing Director Keith Burant for their
alleged predatory lending practices for single and multi-family
properties including homes, condos and apartment buildings. The
lawsuit requests a Court-ordered Accounting by Meridian for all
their mortgage lending and Restitution of all monies due to the
Class of all Borrowers as well as Investors in the Meridian
Mortgage Fund (past and present). Central to the claim is that
there is an illegal shortfall between the Effective Rate of
Interest that Meridian charges Borrowers, allegedly 17.86% to 33.3%
- which the Plaintiffs claim is illegal Usury at common law, being
"harsh and unconscionable" - and the actual amounts Meridian
accounts for and pays to the Fund investors (only 5% to 6%
according to Meridian's own website). At common law Trustees are
strictly required to account for all trust assets which come into
their hands and cannot make a secret profit.
This lawsuit comes at a time when there is a great surge in public
opinion in the UK against the 'loan sharks' industry. There is a
very active crackdown now happening there in the UK to protect
consumers from loan shark activities, according to recent Reuters
and BBC reports.
The Principal Attorney of Duncanson & Co. criticises the lack of
fundamental legislation to protect the consumers of Turks and
Caicos Islands when it comes to this type of lending. He says that
there are common law remedies but they require testing in court at
great expense and delay, and he is adamant that relevant and
hard-hitting financial services legislation now must be enacted to
combat corporate institutions and lending sharks from violating
consumers whether they are individuals, families, business owners
or investors in such a Fund. Mr Duncanson laments that unscrupulous
lending practices that the Turks and Caicos Islands are accustomed
to, would be considered not only against the law and therefore
unenforceable but also a criminal offense, in first-world countries
as in the UK, Canada and most states of the USA (e.g. New York
State actually defines 'criminal Usury as loans at 8% above
prime').
"An action of this nature has great importance for the Turks and
Caicos Islands and generally for the wider Caribbean region. We do
not have the necessary regulatory oversight and regulatory
framework at all when it comes to consumer protection and lending
of this nature and financial services is egregious when it comes to
these matters. Here in the Turks and Caicos we have next to zero
consumer protection. The couple pieces of legislation, all of about
five to 10 pages long, they have no teeth. It is negligible and
laughable. We are accustomed to banks and lending institutions
conducting practices in this manner in the country, but it would
simply be illegal in first-world countries like the United States,
England and Canada," said Mr Duncanson. He noted, "A simple base at
which TCI government might start is to outlaw the Owners and
Directors of lender companies from having serious conflict with
their Borrowers and Investors by simultaneously engaging in local
industries like the Hotels Trade and Real Estate Development,
whether openly or secretly."
Meantime, the Writ of Summons filed in the Supreme Court last week
against the Meridian Group gives the company 14 days to either
satisfy the claim or acknowledge whether they intend to contest the
legal proceedings. Failing to do so would give Plaintiffs the right
to pursue the action and judgment can be entered against the
Meridian Group without further notice.
The Meridian Group is also being accused of burying the real cost
of their loans in additional management fees, on top of very
high-interest rates. Duncanson explains that at the Privy Council
level when interest rates and the total fees of lending
institutions are exceedingly high; judges have made rulings calling
these interest rates offensive, and at the point of being "harsh
and unconscionable" - which is the common law test for illegal
'Usury'.
"We're not saying these lending facilities and institutions can't
be in business, they have every right to make money. But there
comes a point where lending practices become insidious and there
must be aggressive legislation that protects consumers from that.
This is at the point where a noteworthy lender and their practices
are becoming alarming to the community in the Turks and Caicos,"
said Duncanson.
Even though last month the Minister of Finance, Investment and
Trade, the Honourable Mr Erwin Jay Saunders stated that the
government is working to get banks and other lending institutions
in the Turks and Caicos to 'open up' to local businesses; some of
the main issues brewing in the financial services industry remain
'questionable' lending practices of these institutions which can
hurt consumers.
Nevertheless, there is some current legislation in the Turks and
Caicos Islands that regulate banking and lending institutions
including the Banking (Amendment) Regulations 2021, the Banking
(Amendment) Ordinance 2021, International Financial Institution
Ordinance and Banking Special Provisions Ordinance.
Up to press time, Managing Director of the Meridian Trust Company
Limited, Keith Burant nor any senior representative of the group
returned any comments to refute the allegations or outline the
policies of their company including the checks and balances that
may be in place when it comes to their lending practices.
Attorney and legal advocate, Mr Duncanson is campaigning for
consumers in the Turks and Caicos Islands who fall prey to such
alleged lending actions to come forward and join what he calls a
'historic' class action lawsuit. If successful in court, Duncanson
believes that this would represent a milestone in the financial
services industry and begin to raise the standard for lending
practices in the Caribbean region.
"At the end of the day, the voices of consumers throughout the
Turks and Caicos need to be heard loud and clear. Practices like
this cannot continue in our financial services industry. It is one
of the premier industries in the country and we cannot allow
predatory corporations and institutions to take advantage of
consumers. So, I am asking persons out there who have loans from
the Meridian Group in a similar position to come forward," Mr
Duncanson added.
Persons interested in joining the class action lawsuit, in either
Class of Borrowers or Investors in the Mortgage Fund (past and
present), can email duncansonlaw@gmail.com or call 649-941-4444.
[GN]
META PLATFORMS: CEO to Testify on Cambridge Analytica Scandal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rupesh Nair, writing for IGN India, reports that Meta Co-founder
and CEO Mark Zuckerberg will be deposed in federal court for six
hours to testify about the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Zuckerberg will be joined in the deposition by outgoing Meta COO
Sheryl Sandberg and new COO Javier Olivan. The trio will testify in
September, as part of class-action lawsuit filed in support of
California Facebook users.
For readers unaware about the scandal, the controversy stems for a
massive 2018 report, which revealed that British consulting firm
Cambridge Analytica had collected the personal data of various
Facebook users without their consent.
The scandal had rocked the reputation of the company, and since
then Zuckerberg and crew has tried to save face through various
ways such as rebranding Facebook to Meta. However, the issue
surrounding its connection with Cambridge Analytica continues to
persist.
The lawsuit was first filed in 2018, and the prosecutors will be
looking to bring more witnesses from the world of Facebook to
testify about their roles in covering up the data collection from
public. Along with Zuckerberg, Sandberg and Olivan, more executives
will follow their path to court as part of the deposition.
Other than the testimonies from high-ranking Facebook executives,
the multi-billion dollar tech conglomerate will also hand over
various documents pertaining to the lawsuit, and it will be
interesting to see how the drama unfolds in September. [GN]
MISSFRESH LIMITED: Robbins Reminds of September 12 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Class: Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds
investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Missfresh Limited
(NASDAQ: MF) securities pursuant to the Company's June 2021 initial
public offering ("IPO"), for violations of the Securities Act of
1933. Missfresh purports to be an innovator and leader in China's
neighborhood retail industry, which invested the Distributed Mini
Warehouse (DMW) model to operate an integrated online-and-offline
on-demand retail business focusing on offering fresh produce and
fast-moving consumer goods.
If you would like more information about Missfresh Limited's
misconduct, click https://robbinsllp.com/missfresh-limited-gn/
What is this Case About: Missfresh Limited (MF) Provided False
Financial Figures in its Registration Statement in Support of its
IPO
According to the complaint, defendants held the Company's IPO in
June 2021, offering shares to the investing public at $13.00 per
ADS.
On April 29, 2022, Missfresh filed with the SEC a Notification of
Late Filing on Form 12b-25, which announced that it would be unable
to file its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2021 by the prescribed filing deadline of April 30,
2022. Additionally, an independent Audit Committee of the Company's
board of directors is conducting an internal review, including
matters relating to transactions between the Company and certain
third-party enterprises. On this news, Missfresh ADSs fell 23% to
close at $0.448 per ADS on May 2, 2022.
Then, on May 24, 2022, Missfresh announced it had received a
notification letter dated May 19, 2022, from the Listing
Qualifications of NASDAQ indicating the Company is not in
compliance with listing requirements. On this news, Missfresh ADSs
fell 9% over two trading days, to close at $0.167 per ADS on May
26, 2022.
On July 1, 2022, Missfresh revealed it had substantially completed
its review and "[a]s a result, certain revenue associated with
these reporting periods in 2021 may have been inaccurately recorded
in the Company's financial statements." The employees responsible
for the questionable transactions were notified and given notices
of resignation.
As of July 6, 2022, Missfresh's ADSs closed at $0.3075,
representing a 97% decline from the IPO price.
Next Steps: If you acquired shares of Missfresh Limited securities
pursuant to the Company's IPO, you have until September 12, 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.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas
(800) 350-6003
adumas@robbinsllp.com
Shareholder Information Form
About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002. [GN]
MISSOURI: District Court Dismisses Henson v. SECC Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACK HENSON, Plaintiff v. BILL STANGE, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-CV-68-HEA (E.D. Mo.), Judge Henry Edward
Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Southeastern Division, issued an Opinion, Memorandum and
Order:
a. denying the Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis;
b. dismissing the action without prejudice, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B);
c. denying Cynthia Kimmel and Jack Henson's motion to act as
"intervenors"; and
d. denying as moot their Motion to Expedite Entry of Orders
and Judgment.
On May 23, 2022, Henson initiated filed a Prisoner Civil Rights
Complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and filed a
motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis. At the time he
filed the complaint, he was a Missouri State prisoner who resided
at the Southeast Correctional Center. He prepared the complaint
using a Court-provided Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint form. He
identified the following five prison officials as defendants:
Warden Bill Stange, Case Manager Charles Reed, Case Manager Wesley
Fluharty, Superintendent Cybelle Webber, and Investigator Shawn
Burch. He identified Stange, Reed, and Fluharty as prison officials
at the SECC, and he identified Webber and Burch as prison officials
at the Ozark Correctional Center, the facility where he previously
resided.
Mr. Henson sued Reed, Fluharty and Burch in an individual and
official capacity, and he sued Webber in her official capacity
only. He did not specify the capacity in which he sued Stange. The
complaint contained no allegations that he is ill, was being denied
medical treatment, or that he faced any risk of harm. Instead,
Henson claimed Burch wrongfully searched his prison cell and field
tested greeting cards, and determined they contained cannabinoid.
The Plaintiff was placed in administrative segregation, and he
grieved the matter by filing Informal Resolution Requests.
Unspecified prison officials failed to timely respond to his IRRs,
until he finally received an unsatisfactory response from a
non-party prison official. The Plaintiff stated his right to due
process was violated, and he was subjected to harassment,
retaliation, and cruel and unusual punishment. However, he alleged
no facts that could be construed as forming the basis of such
claims.
Before the Court could review the complaint in accordance with
Section 1915, Henson's parents, Kimmel and Henson, filed a pro se
motion and advised the Court that Hendon had died, and requested
leave to act as "intervenors/next of ken." Kimmel and Henson
averred that once their requested relief was granted, they would
"take up and modify previously filed action on behalf of the
Plaintiff" in order to "proceed under a class action suit from the
additional events that occurred after the original petition was
mailed to the Court."
Kimmel and Henson characterized his complaint as setting forth
claims of "retaliation, deliberate indifference, harassment, abuse
of discretion, mental duress/anguish, eigth amendment violation of
cruel and unusual punishment, and a liberty interest violation of
being unlawfully restrained and placed in administrative
segregation w/o necessity of having lawful recourse to challenge
the causes of unjust enrichment confinement." They did not explain
the basis for their belief that the complaint set forth those
claims. Shortly after filing the motion, they filed a motion
titled: "Motion to Expedite Entry of Order's, and Judgment" in
which they urged the Court to quickly rule their motion.
Judge Autrey holds that the Plaintiff's death moots his claims for
the injunctive relief of transfer to a different facility, and his
complaint specified no other form of injunctive or equitable
relief. Therefore, what is left are his claims for an unspecified
amount of damages against the five Defendants.
The official-capacity claims for damages against these Defendants
are subject to dismissal. He explains that a suit against a public
official in his or her official capacity is actually a suit against
the entity for which the official is an agent. According to the
complaint, the Defendants are all employed by the MDOC, a state
agency.
The Eleventh Amendment prohibits suits for damages against the
state, agencies of the state, or state officials acting in their
official capacities. Additionally, "state officers sued for damages
in their official capacity are not 'persons' for purposes of the
suit because they assume the identity of the government that
employs them." Accordingly, the Plaintiff's official-capacity
claims against Reed, Fluharty and Burch are subject to dismissal,
and because he sued Webber and Stange in only their official
capacities, they would be dismissed entirely.
Judge Autrey now turns to whether the complaint states any valid
individual-capacity claims against Reed, Fluharty, and Burch, and
would state such claims against Webber and Stange had the Plaintiff
sued them in an individual capacity. The Plaintiff claimed that
Burch was liable to him because he searched his cell, field tested
four greeting cards, and determined they contained cannabinoid.
There are no allegations permitting the inference that Burch did
any of those things in retaliation for the Plaintiff's exercise of
a constitutional right, or for any other impermissible reason,
Judge Autrey finds. He states, the mere search of an inmate's cell,
without more, is not a constitutional violation. Additionally, to
the extent the Plaintiff claims Burch falsely accused him of
cannabinoid possession, such allegations, standing alone, do not
state a claim of constitutional dimension.
The Plaintiff also stated that his due process rights were
violated. In order to demonstrate that his liberty interest was
curtailed by placement in administrative segregation, a plaintiff
must show that the segregation "created an atypical and significant
hardship on him in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison
life."
In the complaint, Judge Autrey finds that Henson simply stated he
was denied due process without alleging facts in support of his
claim. He did not allege he was denied a hearing or any other
opportunity to be heard. Instead, he premised his claim upon his
belief that Burch's field test was incorrect and/or insufficient to
support the conclusion that he violated a rule. However, a
correction officer's description of events has been found to
constitute some evidence upon which a prison disciplinary committee
could determine that an inmate violated a prison rule. There are
simply no other facts that would state a plausible due process
claim. Although he was not required to allege facts in painstaking
detail, he was required to allege sufficient facts to "raise a
right to relief above the speculative level."
Next, the Plaintiff claimed that prison officials failed to timely
respond to his IRRs. He did not allege that any Defendant or other
prison official prevented him from filing IRRs or otherwise using
the prison's grievance procedure, only that he did not receive
timely responses to the IRRs he filed. Plaintiff's allegations fail
to state a cognizable claim for relief. There is no federal
constitutional right to a prison grievance procedure, and neither
state law nor state policy creates one. Therefore, if a state
elects to provide a grievance mechanism, violations thereof will
not give rise to a Section 1983 claim. Additionally, it is well
established that there is no federal constitutional liberty
interest in having prison officials follow prison regulations. P
The Plaintiff also stated he was transferred from the OCC to the
SECC, and he stated without support that he was subjected to
retaliation by unspecified persons. Also, as relief, he sought
transfer to a different facility. Indeed, a prisoner cannot be
transferred in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutional
right. However, he simply stated he was transferred without
attempting to show that such transfer was retaliatory. A prisoner
"enjoys no constitutional right to remain in a particular
institution," and prison officials generally may "transfer a
prisoner for whatever reason or for no reason at all."
Similarly, the Plaintiff stated, in a conclusory manner, that
unidentified persons subjected him to harassment, retaliation,
cruel and unusual punishment, and due process violations. However,
he provided no factual support or enhancement for such statements.
Without a factual underpinning, plaintiff's allegations amount to
legal conclusions that are not entitled to the presumption of
truth.
Additionally, in setting forth his claims, the Plaintiff most often
referenced the defendants generally and stated his rights were
violated, instead of alleging facts explaining how each Defendant
was personally involved in, or directly responsible for, any act or
omission that violated his federally-protected rights. That is
insufficient, Judge Autrey holds. The Plaintiff also appeared to
proceed against the supervisory defendants on a theory of
respondeat superior. However, such claims are not cognizable.
Judge Autrey concludes that the Plaintiff's complaint contains no
allegations that would state a cognizable claim for relief, and it
is subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(e)(2)(B). There are therefore no claims that Kimmel and/or
Henson could prosecute on the Plaintiff's behalf. Kimmel and Henson
state they wish to "take up and modify" the Plaintiff's complaint,
but they state they wish to do so in order to "proceed under a
class action suit from the additional events that occurred after
the original petition was mailed to the Court." As pro se
litigants, however, they cannot maintain a class action. They are
not licensed attorneys, and therefore may not represent the
interests of others.
A separate order of dismissal will be entered.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2022 Opinion, Memorandum &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdmjmphj from
Leagle.com.
NATIONS LENDING: Third Amended Sched Order Entered in Fitzhenry
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mark Fitzhenry v. Nations
Lending Corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-04043-RMG (D.S.C.), the Hon.
Judge entered a third amended scheduling order as follows:
-- Any motion to amend pleadings or September 29, 2022
join parties shall be filed by:
-- Expert Disclosures: October 28, 2022
-- Defendant(s) shall file and November 29, 2022
serve a document identifying
by full name, address, and
telephone number each person
whom Defendant(s) expects to
call as an expert at trial and
certifying that a written
report prepared and signed by
the expert pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) or,
where allowed, a report prepared
by counsel has been disclosed
to the other parties by:
-- Counsel shall file and serve December 2, 2022
affidavits of records custodian
witnesses proposed to be
presented by affidavit at trial
no later than:
-- Discovery shall be completed no November 16, 2022
later than:
-- Mediation shall be completed in December 19, 2022
this case on or before:
Nations Lending Corporation provides mortgage financing services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vnzpTg at no extra charge.[CC]
NEVZAT ZENELI: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Clifton Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN CLIFTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEVZAT ZENELI d/b/a ITALIAN GARDEN,
Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-00276 (E.D. Tex., July 22, 2022) brings
this collective action complaint against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a dishwasher,
claims that he consistently worked more than 40 hours per workweek
throughout his employment with the Defendant. However, the
Defendant regularly refused to pay him overtime premiums at a rate
that is not less than one and one-half times his regular rats of
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The
Defendant allegedly has a policy or practice of not paying his
dishwashers, cooks, food prep workers and other hourly employees
overtime premiums for any hours worked over 40 per workweek, the
Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid back wages for himself and
all other similarly situated, as well as liquidated damages equal
in amount to the unpaid compensation, costs and allowable expenses
of this action, attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest,
and other relief as may be necessary and/or appropriate.
Nevzat Zeneli d/b/a Italian Garden owns and operates an Italian
restaurant located in Canyon Lake, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
WELMAKER LAW, PLLC
409 N. Fredonia, Suite 118
Longview, TX 75601
Tel: (512) 799-2048
E-mail: doug@welmakerlaw.com
NEW SOUTH WALES: Hundreds Join Class Action Over Strip Searches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Daniel, writing for ABC Australia, reports that Redfern Legal
Centre and law firm Slater and Gordon filed a statement of claim
for the class action in the NSW Supreme Court, on behalf of several
hundred people seeking damages from the state.
It alleges police carried out unlawful acts including assault,
battery and false imprisonment against festival goers while
searching them for illicit substances.
Redfern Legal Centre solicitor Samantha Lee said she hopes there
will also be significant changes to the law to stop NSW Police
doing searches except under serious and urgent circumstances.
"The legislation still allows for a child as young as 10 to be
strip searched in New South Wales without a parent present. It
still provides no clarification around cavity searches and
squatting and coughing," she said.
"It still allows police to strip search without a support person
present. So we want to see not just internal policy changes, but
some really significant changes to the law."
Raya Meredith said she had agreed to lead the class action because
what police did was wrong.
"There are laws in place regarding when police can search a person,
and how those searches are to be conducted, but they didn't follow
them with me," she said.
The NSW Police watchdog says the ambiguity of strip search rules
has resulted in officers conducing the invasive procedure without
legal justification.
In 2019, NSW Coroner Harriet Grahame said evidence showed a heavy
police presence and drug detection dogs could be intimidating and
precipitate "panic ingestion" and "dangerous preloading", which
could increase the risk of illness or fatality.
Ms Lee said the personal damage to young people was significant and
could be compared to the impact of sexual assault.
"There is a level of embarrassment and shame, some of them don't
even tell their parents because they were strip searched for
suspicion of drug use and so they hang on to this really deep harm
and emotion for a very long time," she said.
"Every other government profession has strong child-protection
policies, I see absolutely no reason why this practise (strip
searching) is not removed from the NSW Police force."
In 2020, a two-year inquiry by the Law Enforcement Conduct
Commission (LECC) into NSW Police strip search practices found they
were an "important tool" for officers but could not be conducted as
a matter of routine.
The LECC recommended the NSW Police revise their approach to music
festivals, saying "general intelligence about drug use" at previous
events were "not by itself sufficient to justify" the procedure.
NSW Police issued a statement saying they would not be commenting
as the case is before the courts. [GN]
NEW YORK, NY: Sept. 12 Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Walker v. The City of New
York, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-03234-RJD-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting class
certification briefing schedule as follows:
-- Plaintiffs to file their motion September 12, 2022
for class certification:
-- Defendants to file their November 11, 2022
response to Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification:
-- Plaintiffs to file their reply December 12, 2022
brief in support of their motion
for class certification:
The case is a putative class action concerning custodial arrest and
pre-arraignment confinement of individuals with mobility
disabilities.
The Plaintiffs allege violations of New York City Human Rights Law
(NYCHRL); constitutional rights through 42 U.S.C. section 1983;
rights provided by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
amended and codified as 42 U.S.C. section 12132, et seq. (ADA); and
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
On June 6, 2022, the parties submitted a letter to Magistrate Judge
Merkl outlining different paths to move this litigation forward).
After a conference on June 24, 2022 it was decided that Plaintiffs
would file their motion for class certification while discovery
continues. On July 13, 2022, Magistrate Judge Merkl ordered the
parties' proposed discovery schedule. The deadline for the parties
to complete all depositions is now November 18, 2022.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely
populated borough that's among the world's major commercial,
financial and cultural centers.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oDyTg3 at no extra charge.[CC]
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Class Action Claims Over Sunroofs Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Rains of glassBYTEs.com reports that a class action lawsuit
brought against Nissan North America, Inc. from 2017 alleging a
number of its vehicles include a "defect" on their panoramic
sunroofs that results in shattering under normal driving conditions
continues to make its way through court. This week, U.S. District
Judge William Orrick out of California certified claims from
drivers in California, New York, Colorado and Florida.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick out of California certified
claims from drivers in California, New York, Colorado and Florida
in regards to a class action lawsuit alleging a "defect" on the
panoramic sunroofs of certain Nissan vehicles.
The plaintiffs alleged that the panoramic sunroofs on a number of
Nissan vehicles including the Maxima, Rogue, Pathfinder, Murano and
Infiniti JX and QX60, have a "defect." They and their cited experts
allege that the sunroofs' design makes them vulnerable to
fracturing or shattering under normal driving conditions.
Plaintiffs also argue that Nissan failed to disclose the alleged
issue to consumers as required by consumer protection laws.
However, Nissan argued that its panoramic sunroofs comply with
regulatory standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA). The company further argued that only 0.15%
of its panoramic sunroofs shatter.
Nissan argued for summary judgment as it claimed the plaintiffs
could not prove a "defect." The car manufacturer also argued that
plaintiffs failed to clearly identify the "defect." The judge,
however, noted in his order that claims made by plaintiffs are not
for product liability but consumer protection.
"So the plaintiffs are under no obligation to establish that there
is necessarily a defect in the sense that products liability law
uses that term -- such as, for instance, 'design defect' under
California law," the judge wrote. "Instead, a 'defect' is relevant
to the consumer protection claims only to the extent that it shows
it is something that Nissan was obligated to disclose or
misrepresented."
As such, the judge found a "genuine dispute of material fact about
whether the alleged defect exists."
The judge declined to certify the claims brought from Illinois due
to the state's consumer protection statutes while certifying those
from California, New York, Colorado and Florida. Nissan also moved
to exclude four of the plaintiffs' "experts," a motion the judge
denied.
Orrick did agree with Nissan in part with respect to its request
for summary judgment, writing in his order that the plaintiffs
"advanced no actionable restitution or unjust enrichment theory for
the purchase of used cars from entities other than Nissan." [GN]
ONLY WHAT YOU NEED: Brand Sues Over Mislabeled Protein Shakes
-------------------------------------------------------------
KASAMA BRAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ONLY WHAT YOU NEED, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:22-cv-01052-JO-DEB (S.D. Cal., July 19, 2022) is an action
alleging that the Defendant mislabeled its plant-based protein
drinks providing 35 grams of plant protein per serving under the
name "Pro Elite High Protein Shakes."
According to the complaint, capitalizing on the craze for
low-carbohydrate foods and eating plans, the Defendant has sold
millions of dollars' worth of plant-based protein drinks providing
35 grams of plant protein per serving under the name "Pro Elite
High Protein Shakes." These shakes state prominently on the front
and back labels and on the Products' website that they have "0
g[rams] sugar" or "zero sugar" -- a clear reflection of the
importance that so many consumers place on buying foods that can
help them reduce their sugar intake. They are also specifically
advertised as assisting with weight loss, says the suit.
But contrary to common-sense consumer expectations, these shakes
are far from low-calorie foods. A single 12-ounce serving of these
shakes contains about 230 calories -- which is actually far more
than the 140 calories found in the same-sized serving of a can of
Coca-Cola. These shakes also have far more calories per 12-ounce
serving than protein shakes provided by competitors such as Weight
Watchers and Slim-Fast, the suit added.
Because these Products do not meet the regulatory definition, or
any consumer's expectation, of a low- or reduced-calorie food,
federal regulations require the Defendant to make a disclaimer that
the Products are not for weight control, or the like. But the
Products' labels do not contain the required disclaimer, which
would provide material facts to give consumers the full picture
about these Products' "0g sugar" and "zero sugar" claims. The
failure to include this disclaimer make the Defendant's label and
advertising claims false, deceptive, inaccurate, and misleading,
and the labels, and the Defendant's advertising on its and other
third-party websites, violate federal and state laws and
regulations requiring accuracy in nutritional labels, the suit
further asserts.
Only What You Need, Inc. retails nutritional supplement products.
The Company offers protein drinks and powers, meal replacement
shakes, plant based dairy milk, and spinach and broccoli blends.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles C. Weller, Esq.
CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
11412 Corley Court
San Diego, CA 92126
Telephone: (958) 414-7465
Facsimile: (858) 300-5137
Email: legal@cweller.com
OREGON: Nearly Half of Inmates Included in COVID Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Stites of the Oregon Capital Chronicle reports that a federal
lawsuit involving current or former Oregon inmates infected with
Covid, including one who died, is moving forward with notification
of nearly half of the state's prison population of their inclusion
in the class-action suit.
The U.S. District Court in Eugene certified the class-action status
of the suit in April. Since then, an administrator appointed by the
court has been reaching out to the class-action members. They
include about 5,000 people who were infected with Covid and
incarcerated in Oregon starting on Feb. 1, 2020 and tested positive
at least 14 days after, according to a class-action notice. The
suit includes all inmates infected from mid-February 2020 through
May 31 this year. That group represents 40% of Oregon's prison
population, which is more than 12,000, according to the state
Department of Corrections. Oregon has 14 prisons for men and
women.
The case, brought by seven current and former inmates, accuses
state officials of violating their Eighth Amendment rights, which
guarantees protection from cruel and unusual punishment. It also
claims the state was negligent in protecting them from becoming
infected and preventing inmate deaths.
The lawsuit marks the first time in Oregon - and perhaps the
country - that a judge has certified a class-action seeking damages
over Covid, attorneys said. More than 600,000 inmates in the U.S.
and Puerto Rico have been infected with Covid, according to the
Covid Prison Project, which is overseen by faculty and students at
several universities across the country. The project's data show
that nearly 2,900 have died. According to the Oregon Department of
Corrections, 46 inmates infected with Covid have died.
The case does not specify damages but attorneys said it could cost
the state millions of dollars in damages and fees. If it goes to
trial as requested, it would showcase the Department of
Corrections' treatment of inmates during the pandemic. Dozens of
inmates sue the agency every year, often representing themselves.
Most cases are dismissed.
Inmates can opt out of being included in the class action, which
they might do if they want to file their own suit or for another
reason. If they're included, they would share in damages, lawyers
said.
One of the plaintiffs named in the suit, Juan Tristan, who is
represented by his estate, contracted Covid while incarcerated at
the Oregon State Penitentiary in Salem and died just over a year
ago. The other inmates who are named are imprisoned or were
incarcerated at the penitentiary or Oregon State Correctional
Institution in Salem along with Coffee Creek Correctional Facility,
a women's prison in Wilsonville. The lawsuit does not detail the
severity of their infections but it does accuse government
officials of negligence in not enforcing mask requirements, not
properly screening visitors for Covid, failing to adopt a robust
testing system for inmates and not providing adequate sanitation or
training.
It said the state knew that masking and social distancing protected
against Covid.
"Defendants have failed to take appropriate and prompt steps to
adequately prevent, test and treat Covid-19 across all ODOC
facilities," the suit said.
The defendants - Oregon Gov. Kate Brown; Colette Peters, director
of Oregon's Department of Corrections and President Joe Biden's
nominee to lead federal prisons; Oregon Health Authority Director
Patrick Allen; and seven current or former officials - denied in
court filings they were negligent in protecting inmates from Covid.
They also said they did not violate prisoners' Eighth Amendment
rights and were not responsible for a "wrongful death."
Spokespeople for Gov. Kate Brown's office and the Department of
Corrections declined to further comment on the case, citing pending
litigation.
The case was originally filed in April 2020. A U.S District Court
judge granted the case class-action status in November 2021,
approving two classes in the case: the first for wrongful deaths of
the 46 individuals who died and another "damages class" for all
those who became infected.
The state appealed the class-action ruling but that was denied in
May. The state's motion to dismiss the lawsuit early in the case
was also denied.
An attorney for the plaintiffs and director of the civil rights
project at the Oregon Justice Resource Center said some of the
inmates were emotionally shaken.
"I think the stories that stick with me are the ones where people
watched their cellmates die in front of them because of this
disease when it could've been prevented," said Juan Chavez. "That's
a particularly scary, dangerous and hopeless space to find yourself
… where you have a system that's allegedly built to keep the
public safe, but also the people inside of these prisons safe, and
this was just going to keep happening that so many people were
going to die or get injured."
The lawsuit maintained that the state "acted with deliberate
indifference" to inmate rights by failing in not protecting
inmates, including by not separating corrections officers who
became infected from the others. It also accused the state of being
slow to vaccinate prisoners.
"On January 16 and 17, 2021, Oregon DOC offered vaccines to
approximately 1,558 adults in custody who were deemed high risk or
who were elderly," the suit said. "Notwithstanding that early
vaccination of a small number of adults in custody, the remaining
adult in custody population - some 12,000 people - were not
scheduled for vaccination at that time."
In early February 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Stacie Beckerman
ordered the state to offer vaccines to all inmates. Beckerman is
also hearing this lawsuit.
The complaint said that allowing communal dining inside prisons
contrasted with statewide closures of restaurants and other
eateries on the outside. The lawsuit said prisons have poor
ventilation which helps prevent the spread of the virus, and that
the population is at high risk.
"Prisons and jails also house a large proportion of medically
vulnerable people and offer limited medical resources," the suit
said.
It said experts had predicted that the pandemic would pose a
problem in prisons.
The lawsuit said the first Covid outbreak in an Oregon prison was
in late March 2020 through staff-to-staff transmission.
According to Chavez, a federal ruling following nearly a decade of
litigation in a similar case in Arizona found that the state's
corrections department had violated the Constitution in its care of
inmates. That case did not involve damages.
"It's very rare for there to be a way to articulate how 5,000
people all got injured in the same way," Chavez said. "In terms of
the class action, money damages litigation is actually a pretty big
win. I'm hopeful that incarcerated people in other states see that
and use that means to get into court."
The suit said damages are justified in the case because the state
did not consider releasing prisoners to protect them, which it said
"is widely viewed as necessary in other jurisdictions.
If the state does not settle the case, a trial wouldn't likely be
held until 2024. [GN]
PETS GLOBAL: Settles Suit Over Mislabeled Pet Foods for $2 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------
TopClassActions.org reports that Pets Global Inc. has agreed to pay
nearly $2 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging some of
its Zignature brand pet food products were falsely labeled as being
"grain free" or "chicken free." Consumers do not need proof of
purchase to submit a claim.
Consumers who purchased the allegedly mislabeled Zignature pet food
products marketed as "grain free" or "chicken free" between June 2,
2017, and June 24, 2022, may be entitled to a cash payment from the
Zignature class action settlement.
The allegedly mislabeled Zignature pet food products are:
Zignature Dry Dog Foods:
Venison
Kangaroo Lamb Salmon
Whitefish Guinea Fowl
Duck
Goat
Trout & Salmon
Pork Turkey
Zssential
Catfish
Zignature Small Bites:
Lamb
Kangaroo
Trout & Salmon
Turkey
Zssential
Zignature Canned Dog Foods:
Venison
Kangaroo
Lamb Salmon
Whitefish
Guinea Fowl
Duck
Goat
Trout & Salmon
Pork
Turkey
Zssential
Catfish
Zssential Zignature Select Cuts:
Lamb & Lamb Meal Formula
Turkey Formula
Trout & Salmon Meal Formula
Zignature Ziggy Bar Treat For Dogs:
Venison
Kangaroo
Lamb
Salmon
Whitefish
Guinea Fowl
Duck
Goat
Trout & Salmon
Pork
Turkey
Zssential
Catfish
The Zignature pet food class action lawsuit alleges third-party
testing of the pet food products indicated some that were labeled
as "grain free" or "chicken free" contained grain and chicken.
Pets Global denies any wrongdoing but agreed to a settlement in the
Zignature pet food class action lawsuit to avoid the risk and
expense of further litigation.
Class members who provide proof of purchase may be able to claim up
to $10 per eligible product purchased during the class period and
can make up to 10 claims, for a total of $100 per household.
Class members without proof of purchase may claim up to $5 for
purchases of eligible Zignature pet food products they purchased
during the class period.
In addition to providing cash benefits to eligible class members,
the Zignature pet food settlement also requires Pets Global to
audit all of the manufacturing plants at least yearly for five
years after the settlement is approved to ensure the accuracy of
the ingredients used in the pet food products.
Pets Global has also agreed to remove any and all "grain free" and
"chicken free" representations from its products.
Oct. 31, 2022, is the deadline to object to or opt out of the
Zignature class action settlement.
The final approval hearing will be held Nov. 21, 2022.
The deadline to file a claim in the Zignature pet food settlement
is Dec. 21, 2022.
Who's Eligible: Consumers who purchased the allegedly mislabeled
Zignature pet food products marketed as "grain free" or "chicken
free" between June 2, 2017, and June 24, 2022.
Potential Award: $5 - $10
Proof of Purchase: No proof of purchase required
Class members who do provide proof of purchase by providing copies
of supporting documentation are entitled to a higher award
Claim Form: TO FILE A CLAIM, CLICK
https://secure.pgpetfoodsettlement.com/
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline: 12/21/2022
Case Name: Gifford et al., v. Pets Global Inc., Case No.
2:21-CV-02136-CJC-MRW in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California
Final Hearing: 11/21/2022
Settlement Website: PGPetFoodSettlement.com
Claims Administrator:
Gifford v Pets Global Settlement
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91430
Seattle, WA 98111
info@PGPetFoodSettlement.com
1-877-379-5993
Class Counsel:
J Hunter Bryson
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
Defense Counsel:
Jean-Paul Le Clerc
MARTORELL LAW APC [GN]
PFIZER INC: To Pay $190-Mil. to Wrap Up Neurontin Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Staton, writing for Fierce Pharma, reports that in the latest
settlement of a Big Pharma-delays-generics case, Pfizer ($PFE) has
agreed to pay $190 million to wrap up a class-action suit over its
seizure drug Neurontin. More than a decade old, the lawsuit claimed
that Pfizer did some fast tap-dancing to prolong its Neurontin
monopoly.
A group of Neurontin purchasers initially filed antitrust claims in
2002, saying that Pfizer's efforts to bat away generic versions
cost them many millions of dollars. Among the steps Pfizer
allegedly took to protect Neurontin from competition were "sham"
patent lawsuits, misrepresentations to the patent courts, and
improperly filed patents with the FDA. Pfizer's off-label marketing
also led to overspending on the drug, the plaintiffs claimed.
The class-action settlement comes several years after Pfizer agreed
to pay $430 million to wrap up a U.S. Justice Department marketing
probe. The company has also fought other marketing-related
allegations, including one racketeering case that ended in a $142
million judgment. Pfizer lost a Supreme Court bid in December to
overturn that verdict.
Pfizer admits no wrongdoing in the latest settlement. "The
resolution of this litigation reflects a desire by the company to
concentrate on its business and the needs of patients and
prescribers, while also reducing the cost and distraction of
prolonged litigation," Steven Danehy, a spokesman for Pfizer, said
in a statement.
As Bloomberg points out, the plaintiffs won class-action status in
January 2011, after fending off Pfizer's motion to dismiss the case
in August 2009. The parties worked with a mediator before coming to
the agreement, and the lawyers involved agree that the deal is
fair. The attorneys themselves are set to collect one-third of the
settlement. [GN]
PHH MORTGAGE: Mass. District Court Dismisses Giannasca Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Anthony S. Giannasca, Plaintiff, v. PHH Mortgage Corp.
et al., Defendant, Civil Action No. 21-11741-NMG (D. Mass.), Judge
Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss Giannasca's
claims as barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
The putative class action arises from purportedly defective
pre-foreclosure notices sent by Defendants PHH and Deutsche Bank
National Trust Co., as Trustee of the IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan
Trust 2005-AR33, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2005-AR33, to Plaintiff Giannasca and others similarly situated.
Giannasca seeks, inter alia, declaratory judgment that the notices
and any subsequent foreclosures of their properties are void.
Giannasca is the owner of property located at 9 Joseph Street in
Medford, Massachusetts. In November 2005, he executed a mortgage on
the Property in favor of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
Inc. in the approximate amount of $330,000. In December 2011, MERS
assigned the Mortgage to Deutsche Bank.
In October 2014, PHH, as servicer of the Mortgage, sent Giannasca a
letter informing him he was in default on his mortgage payments.
Several months later, PHH sent Giannasca another letter, entitled
"150 Day Right to Cure Your Mortgage Default".
In April 2016, Giannasca sued several parties, including PHH and
Deutsche Bank, in Massachusetts Superior Court for Middlesex
County, alleging, inter alia, breach of contract. The Superior
Court entered summary judgment for defendants in June 2017, which
was later affirmed by the Massachusetts Court of Appeals.
Giannasca v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 2020 Mass. App. Ct.
Unpub. LEXIS 672 (Mass. App. Ct. July 20, 2020)
In February 2021, PHH sent Giannasca another right-to-cure letter,
which was identical to the First Right to Cure Letter except that
the dates were changed to May 4, 2021, and the amount due was
changed to $162,163.85.
In September 2021, Giannasca commenced the action in Massachusetts
Superior Court for Middlesex County, on his own behalf and
putatively on behalf of all others similarly situated, asserting
claims for 1) declaratory judgment that "default letter/right to
cure notices" sent by defendants contained misleading language and
are "null and void" ("Count I"), 2) violation of the power of sale,
M.G.L. c. 183, Section 21 ("Count II"), 3) breach of contract
("Count III") and 4) violation of M.G.L. c. 244, Section 35A
("Count IV").
The Defendants timely removed the action to the Court and moved to
dismiss it as barred by res judicata, which precludes a plaintiff
from pursuing claims that were litigated in an earlier action, as
well as those that were not previously litigated but could have
been. An earlier judgment has preclusive effect if 1) the prior
action resulted in a final judgment on the merits, 2) the causes of
the action alleged in both suits are sufficiently identical or
related and 3) the parties are likewise sufficiently identical or
closely related.
The parties do not dispute that the Superior Court Action resulted
in a final judgment on the merits or that the parties to each
action are sufficiently identical. Giannasca contends, however,
that the instant claims could not have been litigated in the
Superior Court Action because they were not available to him until
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("the SJC") rendered its
decision in Pinti v. Emigrant Mortg. Co., 33 N.E.3d 1213 (Mass.
2015).
In Pinti, the SJC held that the failure of defendant mortgagee to
send plaintiff mortgagor a notice of default strictly compliant
with the relevant mortgage provision rendered the subsequent
foreclosure void. The required standard of compliance with the
notice-of-default provision was, prior to Pinti, an unsettled area
of state law. Subject to exceptions not relevant in the case, Pinti
was afforded an exclusively prospective effect, i.e. its strict
compliance rule applied only to notices of default sent after the
decision issued.
Giannasca argues that, notwithstanding the fact the Superior Court
Action was filed after Pinti was decided, the objection asserted by
the plaintiffs in Pinti was unavailable to him in that action
because he received notice of his default prior to Pinti. He
submits that, as a result, res judicata does not preclude him from
maintaining a Pinti-style objection to the purportedly
non-compliant language in the Second Right to Cure Letter.
Judge Gorton finds that Pinti has no application to the action. The
language to which Giannasca objects appears in right-to-cure
letters with which Pinti is irrelevant. Those letters, moreover,
are not "hybrid" notices implicating paragraph 22 such that they
might fall within Pinti's ambit. As a result, the Plaintiff's
argument that the claims he asserts here were unavailable in the
Superior Court Action is unavailing. Because all four of his claims
rely similarly on purported defects in the Right to Cure Letters,
they are all barred by res judicata.
In a last attempt to avoid the preclusive effect of the judgment in
the Superior Court Action, Giannasca contends that the First Right
to Cure Letter is a "nullity" because M.G.L. c. Section 35A(a)
provides that the right to cure a default "shall be granted once
during any 5-year period", and more than five years have elapsed
since the First Right to Cure Letter was sent. That is also
irrelevant, Judge Gorton holds. He says nothing about the present
status of the First Right to Cure Letter changes the fact that
Giannasca could have challenged the language to which he now
objects in the Superior Court Action.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdczwm9p from Leagle.com.
POWER PARAGON: Burns Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK BURNS, in his
individual and representative capacities, v. POWER PARAGON, INC.
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:21-cv-01452-CJC-JDE
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying that the action is maintainable as a class
action under Fed R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3);
2. certifying the Class and Subclass described in the filed
Memorandum of Points and Authorities as the Plaintiff
Class; and
3. certifying Patrick Burns as the representative of the
Plaintiff Class and designating attorneys Corbett H.
Williams and Matthew A. Berliner as counsel for the
certified Plaintiff Class.
This is a wage and hour class action by the plaintiff Patrick Burns
against his former employer, Power Paragon for uniform and
systematic violations of the California Labor Code designed to
deprive employees of overtime wages and other benefits.
Paragon is a division of L3Harris Technologies, a publicly traded
defense contractor with a market capitalization in the tens of
billions. Burns and the putative class of more than 40 individuals
worked for Paragon in California as Field Service Engineers
("FSE(s)") performing manual electrical work on behalf of Paragon's
clients.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class pursuant to
Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
All current and former Field Service Engineers Employed by Paragon
during the Class Period.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 18,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OFPKcF
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Corbett H. Williams, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CORBETT H. WILLIAMS
24422 Avenida de la Carlota, Suite 370
Laguna Hills, California 92653
Telephone: 949.679.9909
Facsimile: 949.535.1031
E-mail: cwilliams@chwilliamslaw.com
- and -
Matthew A. Berliner, Esq.
BERLINER LEGAL
100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 870
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 400-4653
E-mail: mb@berlinerlegal.com
PRATT & WHITNEY: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due June 16, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TARAH KYE BOROZNY, et al.;
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PRATT
& WHITNEY, A DIVISION OF RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; et al.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01657-SVN (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge entered a
scheduling order as follows:
-- Any motion to amend the answer or August 29, 2022
join parties must be filed by the
defendant no later than:
-- Any party with a claim or January 15, 2024
counterclaim for damages shall
serve a damages analysis on the
other parties, in compliance with
Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii), on or
before:
-- Initial disclosures pursuant to July 29, 2022:
Rule 26(a)(1) must be exchanged
by:
-- All discovery will be completed February 23, 2024
(not propounded) by:
-- Plaintiffs' motion for class June 16, 2023
certification shall be filed no
later than:
-- The Plaintiffs shall produce any
expert reports concerning class
certification at that time:
-- The Defendants will file any August 14, 2023
opposition to the motion for class
certification no later than:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file any October 6, 2023
reply in further support of the
motion for class certification
no later than:
Pratt & Whitney is an American aerospace manufacturer with global
service operations.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cNafa6 at no extra charge.[CC]
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Frazier Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT FRAZIER, et al.,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, et al., Frazier et al
v. Prince Georges County, Maryland, et al., Case No.
8:22-cv-01768-PJM (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs move the Court under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to certify the
following two classes with the Named Plaintiffs as class
representatives:
1. Equitable Class: The Equitable Class consists of all
people who are now or will be in the future still
detained more than 48 hours after arrest and having
been issued a "pretrial option" or "pretrial order" by the
Prince George's County District or Circuit Court.
2. Damages Class: The Damages Class consists of all people
who, at any time since July 19, 2019, were still
detained more than 48 hours after arrest and having
been issued a "pretrial option" or "pretrial order" by the
Prince George's County District or Circuit Court.
The Plaintiffs also move for an order appointing their counsel as
class counsel.
Prince George's County is a county located in the U.S. state of
Maryland, bordering the eastern portion of Washington, D.C.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated July 19,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PMV9QC
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ellora Thadaney Israni, Esq.
Ryan Downer, Esq.
Jeremy D. Cutting, Esq.
CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
1601 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20009
E-mail: ellora@civilrightscorps.org
Telephone: (202) 894-6132
- and -
Seth Wayne, Esq.
INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
ADVOCACY AND PROTECTION
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER
600 New Jersey Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
E-mail: sw1098@georgetown.edu
Telephone: (202) 662-9042
- and -
Edward Williams, Esq.
Matthew Martens, Esq.
Thomas Bredar, Esq.
Ellen Connell, Esq.
Donna Farag, Esq.
Ayana Williams, Esq.
Sonika Data, Esq.
Yoseph Desta, Esq.
Britany Riley-Swanbeck, Esq.
Robert Boone, Esq.
Timothy Perla, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 663-6487
E-mail: ed.williams@wilmerhale.com
matthew.martens@wilmerhale.com
robert.boone@wilmerhale.com
timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Scheduling Order Entered in Ford Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL J. FORD v.
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-04147-JHS
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joel H. Slomsky entered a scheduling
order as follows:
1. The Plaintiff's Motion for November 15, 2022
Class Certification shall
be filed by:
2. The Plaintiff's Class November 15, 2022
Certification Expert
Disclosures shall be served
upon opposing counsel by:
3. The Plaintiff's Class December 15, 2022
Certification Expert
Depositions shall be
completed by:
4. The Defendant's Opposition January 16, 2023
to Class Certification shall
be filed by:
5. The Defendant's Challenges January 16, 2023
to Plaintiff's Class
Certification Experts shall
be filed by:
6. Defendant's Class January 16, 2023
Certification Expert
Disclosures shall be served
upon opposing counsel by:
7. Defendant's Class February 16, 2023
Certification Expert
Depositions shall be
completed by:
8. Plaintiff's Reply to March 2, 2023.
Defendant's Opposition
to Class Certification
shall be filed by:
9. Plaintiff's Challenges March 2, 2023
to Defendant's Class
Certification Experts
shall be filed by:
Progressive Specialty Insurance Company operates as an insurance
firm. The Company offers property, casualty, life, and health
insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vqaKNU at no extra charge.[CC]
PRUDENTIAL CO: Insurance Carrier Secures Dismissal of Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Campisi of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP wrote on JDSupra
that a federal judge has dismissed a putative class action case
brought by a plaintiff asserting ERISA violations against The
Prudential Company of America ("Prudential") and Tufts University
("Tufts"), stemming from premium rate increases to an ERISA group
long-term care insurance plan sponsored by plaintiff's employer,
Tufts, and issued by Prudential.
On July 12, 2022, United States District Judge Richard Stearns
granted Tufts and Prudential's respective motions to dismiss the
action, Parmenter v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, et
al., No. 1:22-CV-10079, Dkt. No. 43 (D. Mass. July 12, 2022), which
was originally filed on January 20, 2022 in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The plaintiff had alleged that Prudential issued group long-term
care insurance certificates nationwide to group certificate holders
under various ERISA-governed employee benefits plans, and that
those certificates promised that Prudential could only increase
premium rates in the future "subject to the approval of the [state
of insurance] Commissioner of Insurance." The plaintiff further
contended that on January 21, 2019, Prudential notified her that
her group long-term care insurance premium would be increasing by
40%, and that in 2020, she exercised a non-forfeiture option in
response to a second, 19% rate increase. The plaintiff argued that
in several states where plans such as hers were offered, including
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, state insurance regulators have
no rate approval authority over group long-term care insurance, and
that Prudential thereby breached its fiduciary duty owed under
ERISA by imposing premium rate increases, even where state
insurance commissioners had not approved of the rate increases.
The plaintiff also alleged that, prior to enrolling in the at-issue
plan, she had attended a presentation by Prudential in which it was
represented that any future premium increases would need to be
approved by the Massachusetts Commissioner of Insurance, and that
Prudential had thus made a material misrepresentation in violation
of its fiduciary duty. In the action, the plaintiff thus sought to
represent a class of "all former or current Prudential ERISA
governed group long-term care insurance certificate holders, who
(1) were issued coverage under a group long-term care policy which
states premium rate increases will only be permitted if first
approved by their home state insurance regulator and (2) who were
issued their certificate of coverage in a state where group
long-term care insurance rates were unregulated at the time of a
premium rate increase instituted by Prudential." Id. at Dkt. No.
22.
In a text-order, the Court rejected the plaintiff's arguments,
holding that she could not state a sufficient claim for breach of
fiduciary duty. The Court first found that the plaintiff's argument
that Prudential had breached its fiduciary duties because it did
not first secure approval from the Massachusetts Commissioner of
Insurance prior to instituting premium rate increases on her policy
was meritless. Specifically, the Court explained that "to date the
Commissioner has declined to exert its regulatory authority over
premiums for group employer coverage," and agreed with Prudential
that the plaintiff's interpretation that Prudential could thus
never raise its group premium rates in Massachusetts until the
Commissioner began to review and approve such increases would be
"nonsensical," because "it could lock in premiums for participants
for years, ‘possibly decades[,] while the cost of medical
expenses and inflation continue to rise.'" Rather, the Court
determined that Prudential had proffered the "common-sense"
interpretation of the at-issue certificates -- that premium
increases under the group long-term care insurance plans would be
subject to Commissioner approval "if and when the Commissioner opts
to require such approval." Additionally, the Court found that the
plaintiff's assertion that Prudential and Tufts had made a material
misrepresentation at the presentation she had attended prior to
enrolling in her plan failed to meet the heightened pleading
standard set forth at Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (9)(b) for
ERISA claims of breach of fiduciary duty stemming from fraud.
Specifically, the plaintiff was required to specify the time,
place, and contend of the alleged misrepresentation, but the
plaintiff had failed to specify either the time or place.
Ultimately finding that the plaintiff had failed "to allege any
plausible facts establishing any potential wrongdoing" by either of
the defendants, the Court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss the action with prejudice, thus marking a significant win
for the long-term care insurance industry. [GN]
PUSHPAY USA: Court Approves Revised Settlement Notice
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUDRA BLANKERS and W.B.T.
ARNOLD, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
PUSHPAY USA, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01549-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered an order approving amended class
and collective settlement notice.
The Court directs the Settlement Administrator to distribute the
revised notice to the Settlement class members pursuant to the
schedule provided in the Court's Order Re Plaintiffs' Amended
Motion to Certify Class.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Sel8BS at no extra charge.[CC]
RAUSCH STURM: Stenner Files Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Debra Stenner,
individually and on behalf of all others imilarly situated, v.
Rausch Sturm LLP, Case No. 2:22-cv-00828-SCD (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the class and
both staying the motion for class certification and granting relief
from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and
requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
motion.
In the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez,
left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action
complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing
funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's
individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment
in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class
certification motion.
To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zJJ1dB at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620,
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
SALERNO DUANE: Orders Denying Class Status in Cerciello Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DORETTA CERCIELLO, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SALERNO DUANE, INC. and
RAYMOND DUANE, Defendants-Respondents, Docket No. A-3090-20 (N.J.
Super. App. Div.), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate
Division, affirms the orders denying class certification.
In this class action arising out of the purchase of a vehicle, the
Appellate Division considers whether the Defendants' material
breach of an arbitration agreement -- the failure to pay the
administration fees -- precludes them from asserting the waiver of
the right to pursue a class action in the subsequent Superior Court
litigation.
The Appellate Division concludes it does not. It opines that the
arbitration agreement clearly informed consumer purchasers they
were waiving their right to pursue a class action in court and in
arbitration. Although the Defendants cannot compel arbitration
because of their failure to pay the requisite fees, their breach of
the agreement does not eradicate the other provisions to which the
Plaintiff agreed -- namely the waiver of the right to pursue a
class action in court. It affirms the orders denying class
certification.
The Plaintiff executed a Motor Vehicle Retail Order (MVRO) and
Retail Installment Sale Contract (RISC) when she purchased a used
car from the Defendants. The MVRO contained arbitration agreement.
Three months after the sale, the Plaintiff filed a demand for
arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (AAA)
alleging the Defendants violated several statutes in overcharging
her for title and registration fees and selling the car for more
than the advertised price. Salerno Duane was served with the
demand.
In February 2017, AAA notified the Plaintiff and Salerno Duane of
the filing of the arbitration demand and that Salerno Duane was
required under the MVRO to pay the AAA fees to administer the
arbitration. After Salerno Duane failed to pay the required fees,
AAA declined to administer the case and closed the file.
Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint which
asserted claims against the Defendants under the Consumer Fraud
Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -227, the Automotive Sales Practices
Regulations, N.J.A.C. 13:45A-26B.1 to -26B.4, the Motor Vehicle
Advertising Practices Regulations, N.J.A.C. 13:45A-26A.1 to
-26A.10, and the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice
Act, N.J.S.A. 56:12-14 to -18. In its answer, the Defendants stated
the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case due to
the arbitration clause.
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and compel
arbitration, which the Plaintiff opposed. The trial court denied
the motion. A lengthy discovery period and motion practice then
ensued during which the court held multiple case management
conferences and issued responsive orders. During an April 24, 2019
case management conference, the Defendants raised the issue of the
arbitration provision in the potential class members' contracts,
contending the provision precluded class certification.
Although the Defendants moved to preclude class certification and
for summary judgment, they later withdrew the motions as the
parties continued to dispute the production of discovery and
pleading deficiencies in the complaint. Thereafter, the Plaintiff
filed an amended class action complaint. In their answer, the
Defendants again asserted the Plaintiff lacked standing as a class
member representative due to the waiver clause in the arbitration
provision.
In May 2020, the Plaintiff moved for class certification of Classes
A and B. On Aug. 13, 2020, the trial court denied the Plaintiff's
motion to certify Classes A and B. Two months later, the Plaintiff
filed her second motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff proposed "Class A," consisting of "All persons who,
at any time on or after the day six years prior to the date the
initial complaint was filed, purchased or leased a motor vehicle
from defendants and were (a) charged a fee for registration and
title that exceeded the actual fees charged by the New Jersey Motor
Vehicle Commission to timely register and/or title the vehicle
purchased or leased, or (b) charged a fee to transfer title to a
vehicle traded in to defendants without the fee being separately
disclosed on the MVRO or the amount of the fee being separately
disclosed on the MVRO and entered into an MVRO and RISC with the
same arbitration provisions as the versions used in plaintiff's
transaction where the buyer did not sign the agreement to arbitrate
in the RISC."
And "Class B," consisting of "All persons who, at any time on or
after the day six years prior to the date the initial complaint was
filed, purchased or leased a motor vehicle from defendants and were
charged (a) fees for documentary service that included no other
itemizations on the MVRO than a Clerical Fee or Documentary
Delivery Service or (b) included the same description of Title and
Registration Fees as disclosed on plaintiff's MVRO, or (c) included
the same description of Documentary Fee as disclosed on plaintiff's
MVRO and entered into an MVRO and RISC with the same arbitration
provisions as the versions used in plaintiff's transaction where
the buyer did not sign the agreement to arbitrate in the RISC."
On April 21, 2021, Judge Alan G. Lesnewich denied the Plaintiff's
second motion for class certification. The judge noted that despite
his prior ruling that the Plaintiff could not serve as a class
representative, she remained the class representative in the new
motion for certification. Without a valid class representative, the
class could not be certified and the case could not proceed as a
class action.
In addition, the judge found that the Plaintiff could not add the
new class definitions because she had not sought leave to amend her
complaint to add the new language. The December 2019 amended
complaint did not contain the proposed class definitions, nor did
it make a claim for relief under the RISC. Judge Lesnewich also
noted that no putative class member had signed the RISC. Therefore,
there was no legal basis to support the Plaintiff's argument that
the unsigned RISC arbitration provision created a legal deficiency
regarding the arbitration agreement in the executed MVRO.
On appeal, the Plaintiff challenges the orders denying class
certification, contending the trial court erred in finding the
Plaintiff could not be a class representative and that the putative
class members could not be class members. The Plaintiff asserts the
court erred in permitting the Defendants to enforce the class
waiver provision in the arbitration agreement after they materially
breached the agreement.
The Appellate Division initially addresses whether the Plaintiff
and the putative class members waived their rights to pursue a
class action. It needs look no further than the plain language of
the arbitration agreement. It finds that the class action waiver
contained in the arbitration agreement was clear and unambiguous.
The Appellate Division turns then to the Plaintiff's assertion that
under Roach v. BM Motoring, LLC, the Defendants' material breach of
the arbitration agreement in failing to pay the required fees
rendered the entire agreement unenforceable, including the class
action waiver. It finds the reliance on Roach misplaced. Roach does
not reference a class action waiver provision in the arbitration
agreement. It was not an issue before the Court and Roach is not
instructive regarding the Plaintiff's contention.
Because the Plaintiff was clearly informed of the waiver that
applied both in court and arbitration, the Appellate Division is
satisfied the class action waiver survives the Defendants' breach
of the agreement and remains applicable to the Plaintiff's claims.
Therefore, the Plaintiff could present her claims on an individual
basis in court, but she could not act as a class representative of
a class action or participate as a member of a class action. The
court did not err in denying class certification because the
Plaintiff could not serve as a class representative and the counsel
did not appoint a replacement when they attempted to redefine the
classes in the second motion for certification. Without a class
representative, the court properly denied class certification.
The Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in finding the class
action waiver clauses in the putative class members' MVROs
prevented them from becoming class members. The Appellate Division
disagrees. The potential class members all executed a MVRO with the
provision noted above in which the consumer was informed they could
not pursue any claim, even in court, on behalf of a class or
consolidate their claim with any others. For the reasons already
stated regarding the Plaintiff's claims, the putative class members
were also foreclosed from joining a class and being part of a class
action in a court.
In challenging the second order denying class certification, the
Plaintiff contends the arbitration agreement in the RISC is
controlling and supersedes the MVRO arbitration agreement. The
Appellate Division disagrees. The RISC does not reference the
waiver of a class action if the claims are brought in court.
Therefore, there was no mutual assent to the contract, and the
arbitration provision in the RISC is not enforceable. Consequently,
there is no agreement that conflicts or is inconsistent with the
MVRO's arbitration provision.
The Plaintiff and the putative class members were clearly informed
by the MVRO that they were waiving their right to pursue a class
action or be a member of a class action whether they asserted
claims in an arbitration setting or in court. Although the
Defendants were foreclosed from compelling arbitration of the
dispute after they failed to pay the AAA administration fees, they
were not precluded from asserting the class action waiver in the
court action. Because the Plaintiff could not serve as a class
representative and all of the putative class members also signed
MVROs, the trial court correctly denied class certification and
dismissed the complaint.
The Plaintiff's remaining arguments are without sufficient merit to
warrant discussion in a written opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5xzjj9tv from Leagle.com.
Andrew R. Wolf -- awolf@dannlaw.com -- argued the cause for
appellant (Law Office of David C. Ricci, LLC and Dann Law Firm, PC,
attorneys; David C. Ricci, Andrew R. Wolf, and Michael A. Smith,
Jr., on the briefs).
Michael V. Gilberti -- mgilberti@jmslawyers.com -- argued the cause
for respondents (Jardim, Meisner & Susser, PC, attorneys; Michael
V. Gilberti, on the brief).
SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL: Gallardo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SHIRLEY MARISABEL GALLARDO, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, in a collective action, Plaintiff v.
SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT d/b/a MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, a
Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-22305-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., July 22, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a non-exempt Medical
Assistant for the Defendant hospital system.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant did not properly
compensate her for all hours she has worked. Despite consistently
working more than 40 hours per work week, the Defendant willfully
refused to pay her lawfully earned overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Plaintiff asserts
that the Defendant attempted to avoid its obligation to pay
overtime by knowingly and intentionally forcing her to work off the
clock and not paying her for all hours worked. In addition, the
Defendant automatically deducted 30 minutes each workday from her
recorded time on the incorrect assumption that she took a 30-minute
bona fide meal break each day even though she did not take any bona
fide meal break, says the Plaintiff.
Moreover, when the Plaintiff complained that she was not being paid
for all of her time, the Defendant retaliated by harassing,
intimidating, threatening, and bullying the Plaintiff.
Consequently, the Plaintiff was forced to resign with the active
involvement of her supervisor and the Director, the suit alleges.
On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees,
the Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' and paralegal fees,
litigation costs and expenses, pre-judgment interest, retaliation
damages fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems to be
just and proper.
South Broward Hospital District d/b/a Memorial Healthcare System is
an independent special tax with hospitals across southern Broward
County. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esq.
SCHWARZBERG & ASSOCIATES
2751 South Dixie Highway, Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33405
Tel: (561) 659-3300
Fax: (561) 693-4540
E-mail: steve@schwarzberglaw.com
mail@schwarzberglaw.com
STARBUCKS CORP: Settles Wage and Tip Class Suit for $6 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
TopClassActions.org reports that Starbucks Corp. has reached a $6
million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that claimed
the company violated state law regarding tips and wages.
The class includes Starbucks employees in Oregon who had deductions
taken from their wages for taxes on imputed tips on or after Dec.
10, 2009.
The lawsuit argued tax deductions were withheld from wages on
imputed tips. Plaintiffs argued in the lawsuit that these tax
withholdings were not required by law.
The lawsuit claimed these withholdings led to employees being
short-changed in their final wages when they left the company. The
court certified two claims: the unlawful deductions claim and the
failure to pay final wages claims.
Starbucks is a multinational coffee chain, the world's largest.
Based in Seattle, Starbucks has more than 30,000 stores in 80
countries and generates nearly $30 billion in revenue a year.
According to Forbes, the company employs 383,000 people.
Starbucks has found itself the defendant in a number of lawsuits,
including claims that the company's, drinks needed more caffeine,
its gummies were artificially flavored, its pesticide practices
were inappropriate and its employees overcharged customers for
breakfast sandwiches, among other product- and customer-related
suits. Starbucks also faced class action lawsuits alleging age
discrimination and over employee background checks.
But the concept of tip pooling has been under scrutiny since at
least 2008, when baristas sued Starbucks for violating
Massachusetts tips laws, and another lawsuit claimed the company
added a "phantom wage" that caused some employees to make less than
minimum wage.
Starbucks denies it engaged in wrongful conduct or violated the
law, as alleged in the most recent wage and tip class action, and
settled to avoid the cost and risks of a trial.
Class members will receive a Starbucks settlement payment on the
recent class action lawsuit unless they exclude themselves.
The estimated settlement payment for each class member is $324.
The deadline for exclusion or objection is Aug. 1, 2022. By not
excluding themselves and receiving the settlement payment, class
members are giving up their right to sue and make the same claims
later.
A final fairness hearing will take place Sept. 8, 2022.
No claim form is required for the Starbucks wage and tip
settlement.
Who's Eligible: Starbucks employees in Oregon who had deductions
taken from their wages for taxes on imputed tips on or after
12/10/2009
Potential Award: $324
Proof of Purchase: No proof of purchase applicable
Exclusion or Objection Deadline: 08/01/2022
Case Name: Fredrickson, et al. v. Starbucks Corporation, Case No.
1212-15734 in Circuit Court of Oregon for the County of Multnomah
Final Hearing: 09/08/2022
Settlement Website: StarbucksOregonClassAction.com
Claims Administrator:
Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 3230
Portland OR 97208-3230
1-877-231-0436
Class Counsel:
Jon M Egan
JON M EGAN PC
Defense Counsel:
Christopher F McCracken
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC [GN]
STATE FARM: Court Grants Renewed Bid to Seal Docs in Toms Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID TOMS, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-736-KKM-JSS (M.D. Fla.),
Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, grants in part and
denies in part State Farm's renewed motion to seal documents.
The motion is filed in connection with the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification, State Farm's Opposition to Class
Certification, and State Farm's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of
Scott Witt.
The Plaintiff filed his class action complaint on March 26, 2021,
asserting claims arising from the purchase of life insurance
policies from the Defendant. The Defendant answered the complaint
and asserted affirmative defenses on May 26, 2021.
On Sept. 13, 2021, the Court entered a Stipulated Protective Order,
which allows the parties to designate as "CONFIDENTIAL,"
information including any "trade secret, commercial, or any other
personal information of any Party or Party's customer, provided
that the Party or third-party has made efforts to maintain
confidentiality that are reasonable under the circumstances." The
protective order allows a party to challenge a confidentiality
designation "at any time," provided that delay does not impose an
undue burden or disruption. In October 2021, the Defendant produced
to the Plaintiff a number of the documents at issue in the Renewed
Motion to Seal, and designated them as "CONFIDENTIAL" pursuant to
the protective order.
On Jan. 28, 2022, the Plaintiff filed his Motion for Class
Certification and, with the Court's leave, filed under seal certain
attachments to that motion. Specifically, he filed 10 documents in
partially or fully redacted form removing information that he
claimed Defendant had sought to seal in parallel litigation. He
noted that these documents were "the subject of detailed testimony
in open court at the trial in Vogt v. State Farm Life Insurance
Company, 16-4170-CV-NKL (W.D. Mo. [filed June 15, 2016]), and many
of the at-issue documents and information were publicly disclosed
and admitted into evidence as trial exhibits in that public
proceeding." On Feb. 11, 2022, the Defendant moved to seal these
documents and the Plaintiff opposed.
On April 15, 2022, before the court ruled on the Defendant's
initial motion to seal, the Defendant made four filings. First, it
moved to seal, in whole or in part, 15 documents filed in
connection with its forthcoming Opposition to the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification and its Motion to Exclude the
Testimony of the Plaintiff's Expert Scott Witt. Second, it filed
its response in opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification in redacted form. Third, it filed its Motion to
Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert Scott Witt in redacted
form. Finally, the Defendant filed a Notice of Filing Documents in
Support, which included placeholders or redactions for those
documents that Defendant had sought leave to seal. The Plaintiff
opposed the Defendant's second motion to seal, arguing in large
part that the information had already been publicly disclosed.
On April 27, 2022, the Court held a hearing on Defendant's initial
motion to seal.
On May 13, 2022, the Defendant filed its Renewed Motion to Seal,
seeking leave to seal, in whole or in part, 21 documents.
With the Renewed Motion to Seal, it submitted a declaration from
its Actuarial Director Jeffrey Holzbauer summarizing the asserted
proprietary and confidential information contained within each
document. It also submitted a declaration by its counsel Jeremy
Root, which provided information regarding the extent to which each
document had been previously publicly disclosed. The Plaintiff
filed an opposition to the Defendant's Renewed Motion to Seal on
May 26, 2022. On June 22, 2022, the Defendant filed a reply in
further support of its Renewed Motion to Seal. The Court held a
hearing on July 8, 2022.
Having reviewed the parties' briefing on this matter and supporting
documentation, having heard oral argument from counsel at two
hearings, and having reviewed the documents that the Defendant
seeks to seal in camera, Judge Sneed finds that based on the nature
and character of the information in question, the Defendant has
demonstrated good cause to file some of the documents under seal.
She grants in part and denies in part its Renewed Motion to Seal.
Judge Sneed denied the Renewed Motion to Seal as to the Defendant's
request to seal the following documents: (i) excerpts from the
Transcript of the Deposition of State Farm Employee Carl Streily on
Nov. 7, 2017 (Dkt. 60-6); (ii) excerpts from the Transcript of the
Deposition of State Farm 30(b)(6) Designee Jeffrey Holzbauer on
Nov. 30, 2017 (Dkt. 60-10); and (iii) State Farm email re: VUL
Illustration examples (Dkt. 60-14).
To the extent that the Defendant seeks to redact from the Streily
Deposition Transcript, questions or answers that simply identify or
recount content from the New Jersey Actuarial Memorandum that it
does not seek to redact from memorandum itself, Judge Sneed directs
the Defendant to revise its proposed redactions such that those
portions will not be redacted. To the extent that the transcript
reflects Mr. Streily's analysis of or impressions of any such
information, including the questions sought to elicit that
testimony, the Defendant has made the requisite showing of good
cause for those portions to be filed under seal.
The Defendant's proposed redactions of Mr. Holzbauer's Nov. 30,
2017 deposition transcript are also overbroad. So, to the extent
that the Defendant seeks to redact from this document, questions or
answers that simply identify or recount information that it does
not seek to redact from the New Jersey Actuarial Memorandum itself,
Judge Sneed directs the Defendant to revise its proposed redactions
to reveal those portions. To the extent that the transcript
reflects Mr. Holzbauer's analysis of or impressions of any such
information, including the questions sought to elicit that
testimony, the Defendant has made the requisite showing of good
cause for those portions to be filed under seal.
Regarding VUL Illustration examples, Judge Sneed does not find good
cause to seal this email in full, as the Defendant has failed to
establish that a less onerous alternative to sealing in full is not
available. In particular, she sees no reason why the redaction of
this email should not mirror the redaction of the other internal
email at issue.
Specifically, while the content of the emails in this chain may
reflect the Defendant's confidential information that is worthy of
protection, the email fields reflecting the senders, recipients,
subject lines, and dates of the emails on this chain do not. This
is especially true given that the Defendant itself has revealed at
least part of this information in support of its Renewed Motion to
Seal. Thus, the Defendant is directed to submit a revised redacted
version of this email chain that redacts the content of the emails,
but does not redact the email fields reflecting the senders,
recipients, subject lines, and dates of the emails on this chain.
The Defendant is directed to submit revised redacted versions of
these documents to the Plaintiff in accordance with the Order for
filing in support of the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification. The Clerk is directed to accept under seal the
unredacted versions of these documents.
Judge Sneed grants the Renewed Motion to Seal with respect to all
other documents. First, within the 21 documents at issue, the
Defendant seeks to seal what it claims to be its confidential
business information and trade secrets, as well as the personal
information of its policyholders. On review, the Defendant has
demonstrated good cause to seal some of the requested documents.
Initially, Judge Sneed finds that allowing access to the documents
would not impair the judicial function, but would harm the
legitimate privacy interests of the Defendant. There is no
suggestion that the Plaintiff will not be afforded an opportunity
to respond to the information should it be placed under seal, and
indeed the parties appear to have engaged in similar litigation
with the same or similar information under seal. There is further
no challenge to the reliability of the information, nor is there an
assertion that the information concerns public officials or public
concerns.
The parties are directed to publicly file redacted versions of the
remaining documents in support of the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification and the Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification, and Motion to Exclude the Testimony of
Scott Witt, as consistent with the most recent redacted versions
submitted to the Court for in camera review as part of its
resolution of the Renewed Motion to Seal. The Clerk is further
directed to accept under seal the unredacted versions of these
documents.
The documents will remain under seal for 90 days after the case is
closed and all appeals are exhausted.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5u8kmhtb from Leagle.com.
STUBHUB INC: Stipulation Continuing Class Cert Briefing Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IN RE: STUBHUB REFUND
LITIGATION, Case No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties
jointly stipulate to the following continued case schedule, subject
to the Court's approval, with the concurrently-filed proposed
order:
-- Substantial completion of Sept. 30, 2022
Defendant's document production:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file Nov. 22, 2022
motion for class certification
(and disclosure of class
expert(s)):
-- Defendant's deadline to file Jan. 31, 2023
response to class certification
motion (and disclosure of class
rebuttal expert(s)):
-- Plaintiffs' reply in support of March 31, 2023
class certification and parties'
responses to any Daubert
challenges:
StubHub is an American ticket exchange and resale company. It
provides services for buyers and sellers of tickets for sports,
concerts, theater and other live entertainment events.
A copy of Parties' motion dated July 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BpPcEz at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
Bradley K. King, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
bking@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
Steven L. Wittels, Esq.
J. Burkett McInturff, Esq.
Tiasha Palikovic, Esq.
WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC
18 Half Mile Road
Armonk, New York 10504
Telephone: (914) 319-9945
Facsimile: (914) 273-2563
E-mail: slw@wittelslaw.com
jbm@wittelslaw.com
tpalikovic@wittelslaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
William P. Donovan, Jr., Esq.
Daniel Campbell, Esq.
Emilie O'Toole, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
Telephone: (310) 277-4110
Facsimile: (310) 277-4730
E-mail: wdonovan@mwe.com
dcampbell@mwe.com
eotoole@mwe.com
STUBHUB: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Continued in Refund Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: STUBHUB REFUND LITIGATION, Case No.
4:20-md-02951-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam,
Jr. entered an order continuing class certification briefing
schedule as follows:
-- Substantial completion of September 30, 2022
Defendant's document
production On or before:
-- The Plaintiffs' deadline November 22, 2022
to file motion for class
certification:
-- Defendant's deadline to January 31, 2023
file response to class
certification motion:
-- Plaintiffs' reply in March 31, 2023
support of class
certification and
parties' responses to any
Daubert challenges:
-- Hearing on Plaintiffs' April 20, 2023
class certification motion:
StubHub is an American ticket exchange and resale company. It
provides services for buyers and sellers of tickets for sports,
concerts, theater and other live entertainment events. It has grown
from the largest secondary-market ticket marketplace in the United
States into the world's largest ticket marketplace.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OSZLn2 at no extra charge.[CC]
SUN PHARMACEUTICAL: Settles Ranbaxy Class Action for $485 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoey Becker, writing for Fierce Pharma, reports that Sun
Pharmaceutical Industries Limited struck a settlement deal worth
$485 million to wrap up class-action claims that Ranbaxy's faulty
FDA approval filings kept low-priced generics off the market, the
company said Wednesday.
Sun, which bought Ranbaxy in 2014, admitted no wrongdoing. It
agreed to the settlement to "resolve this dispute and avoid
uncertainty," the company said in a filing. The settlement's size
may be small in comparison to the pharma industry's
multibillion-dollar opioid settlements -- or even Roche and
AstraZeneca's $775 million patent settlement last week -- but Sun
is a much smaller company, with U.S. drug sales (PDF) in fiscal
2021 of $370 million.
The class-action lawsuit was consolidated in court in 2019, and
last year Boston Federal Judge Nathaniel Gorton denied Sun's
attempt to avoid a trial.
The plaintiffs -- a variety of generic drug buyers -- claimed
Ranbaxy violated antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws
by submitting multiple applications for FDA approval that contained
missing or fraudulent information.
With those flawed Abbreviated New Drug Approval applications,
Ranbaxy won coveted 180-day exclusivity for its generic versions of
the Novartis blood pressure drug Diovan, AstraZeneca's stomach-acid
pill Nexium and Roche's herpes antiviral Valcyte.
The plaintiffs said Ranbaxy's false applications prevented other
companies from entering the market, causing higher prices. Ranbaxy
itself finally won FDA approval for the Diovan generic in 2014 but
lost its tentative approvals for the other two drugs.
The settlement requires court approval. Asked for comment, a Sun
spokesperson said, "We don't have anything further to add" to
Wednesday's official announcement.
This class-action battle was just one of the problems Sun took on
when it bought Ranbaxy in one of pharma's biggest M&A deals of
2014. At the time, four of Ranbaxy's manufacturing plants had been
sidelined by the FDA for quality problems. They were operating
under an FDA consent decree with oversight by outside auditors.
[GN]
SUNPOWER CORP: Barnes et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
TREVOR BARNES and STEPHANIE BROWN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNPOWER CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-04299 (N.D. Cal., July 25, 2022) bring
this complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs received unsolicited
prerecorded telemarketing calls from the Defendant without their
prior express written consent. Plaintiff Barnes claims that the
Defendant called his telephone number (323) 333-XXXX, which has
been on the National Do Not Call Registry for more than 31 days
prior to June 2, 2022, twice on June 2, 2022 offering its good or
services. Plaintiff Barnes asserts that he never consented to
receive calls from the Defendant. Although he answered the
Defendant's first call to inform that he was not interested, the
Defendant placed another call to Plaintiff Barnes' telephone
number. Plaintiff Brown also claims that he received a prerecorded
phone call on her cellular telephone from the Defendant on May 31,
2022.
The Plaintiffs seek an injunction prohibiting the Defendant and/or
its affiliates and agents from violating the TCPA by placing
non-emergency calls to any cellular telephone number using an
artificial or prerecorded voice without prior express written
consent of the receiving party. The Plaintiffs also seek an award
of at least $500 up to $1,500 in damages for each violation, and
other relief as the Court deems necessary, just, and proper.
SunPower Corporation provides photovoltaic solar energy generation
systems and battery energy storage products, primarily for
residential customers. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Tel: (617) 738-7080
Fax: (617) 830-0327
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and –
Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
176 Federal St., 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Tel: (617) 738-7080
Fax: (617) 830-0327
E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
- and –
Andrew W. Heidarpour, Esq.
HEIDARPOUR LAW FIRM, PPC
1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 190-318
Washington, DC 20004
Tel: (202) 234-2727
E-mail: aheidarpour@hlfirm.com
SUTTER VALLEY: Ward Loses Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jennifer Ward, et al., v.
Sutter Valley Hospitals, Case No. 2:19-cv-00581-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.),
the Court entered an order:
1. denying the defendant's motion to exclude testimony;
2. granting grants the defendant's motion to strike
supplemental reply;
3. denying the plaintiffs' motion to strike class member
declarations; and
4. denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of
collective action, each without prejudice to renewal
addressing the issues identified by this order.
Sutter Valley Hospitals is a general hospital.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JfkU9M at no extra charge.[CC]
T-MOBILE USA: Agrees to $350M Settlement Over Massive Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Clark, writing for The Verge, reports that T-Mobile has
agreed to pay $500 million to settle a class-action lawsuit
stemming from the 2021 hack that it says exposed around 76.6
million US residents' data. According to the proposed agreement
filled on Friday, which you can read in full below, T-Mobile will
put $350 million into a settlement fund to go to lawyers, fees,
and, of course, to people who file claims. It'll also be obligated
to spend $150 million on "data security and related technology"
during 2022 and 2023, in addition to what it had already budgeted
for.
In August, the company announced that its systems had been
breached, following reports that Social Security numbers, names,
addresses, and driver's license information for over 100 million of
its customers was for sale. While the number proved to be slightly
inflated, T-Mobile's figure of how many people were impacted
continued to rise over the rest of the month. T-Mobile's CEO called
this security breach -- its fifth in four years -- "humbling."
The proposed settlement agreement still has to be approved by a
judge, but if it is, T-Mobile will have 10 days to put money in the
fund to cover the costs of notifying people who are eligible to
claim. According to the settlement, that covers "the approximately
76.6 million U.S. residents identified by T- Mobile whose
information was compromised in the Data Breach," with a few caveats
for some of the carrier's employees and people close to the judges
that presided over the case. In the interest of full disclosure,
that could very well mean that I'm eligible to apply for
compensation, as I was a T-Mobile customer when the hack occurred.
The settlement agreement doesn't contain estimates on how much each
claimant can expect to receive, though it's difficult to estimate
that kind of thing until it's clear how many people will make
claims.
The lawsuit that T-Mobile is hoping to settle here accused the
company of failing to protect its past, present, and prospective
customers' data, not properly notifying people who may have been
impacted, and overall having "inadequate data security." T-Mobile
denies these allegations in the agreement, saying that the
settlement doesn't constitute an admission of guilt. In a filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the carrier says it
"has the right to terminate the agreement under certain conditions"
laid out in the proposed agreement but says that it anticipates
having to pay out the claims.
Outside of this lawsuit, there have been other responses to
T-Mobile's data breach and others like it. The FCC proposed new
rules surrounding such attacks, which aim to improve how a company
communicates with people about their data. [GN]
TG THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Reminds Investors of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Class: Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds
investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired TG Therapeutics, Inc.
(NASDAQ: TGTX) securities between January 15, 2020 and May 13,
2022, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. TG
Therapeutics is a commercial stage biopharmaceutical company. The
Company's therapeutic product candidates include Ublituximab, an
investigational glycoengineered monoclonal antibody for the
treatment of B-cell non-hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic
leukemia ("CLL"), and relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis; and
Umbralisib, or UKONIQ, an oral inhibitor of PI3K-delta and
CK1-epsilon for the treatment of CLL, marginal zone lymphoma
("MZL"), and follicular lymphoma ("FL").
If you would like more information about TG Therapeutics, Inc.'s
misconduct, click https://robbinsllp.com/tg-therapeutics-inc/
What is this Case About: TG Therapeutics, Inc. (TGTX) Overstated
the Clinical and Commercial Prospects of its New Drugs
According to the complaint, in January 2020, TG Therapeutics
initiated a rolling submission of a New Drug Application ("NDA") to
the FDA, requesting accelerated approval of Umbralisib as a
treatment for patients with previously treated MZL and FL (the
"Umbralisib MZL/FL NDA). In December 2020, the Company initiated a
rolling submission of a Biologics License Application ("BLA") to
the FDA for Ublituximab in combination with Umbralisib as a
treatment for patients with CLL (the "U2 BLA").
In May 2021, TG Therapeutics submitted a supplemental NDA ("sNDA")
for Umbralisib to add an indication for CLL and small lymphocytic
lymphoma ("SLL") in combination with Ublituximab (the "U2 sNDA").
In September 2021, TG Therapeutics submitted a BLA for Ublituximab
as a treatment for patients with relapsing forms of multiple
sclerosis ("RMS") (the "Ublituximab RMS BLA").
Then, on November 20, 2021, TG Therapeutics advised that the FDA
was evaluating "the benefit-risk of the U2 combination in the
treatment of CLL or SLL, and the benefit-risk of UKONIQ in
relapsed/refractory marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) or follicular
lymphoma (FL). In addition, as part of the benefit-risk analysis,
the overall safety profile of the U2 regimen, including adverse
events (serious and Grade 3-4), discontinuations due to adverse
events, and dose modifications, is expected to be reviewed",
stating that the FDA's concern "appears to stem from an early
analysis of overall survival from the UNITY-CLL trial." On this
news, TG Therapeutics' stock price fell $8.16 per share, or almost
35%, to close at $15.20 per share on November 30, 2021.
On April 15, 2022, TG Therapeutics announced it had "voluntarily
withdrawn the pending Biologics License Application
(BLA)/supplemental New Drug Application (sNDA) for the combination
of ublituximab and UKONIQ® (umbralisib) (combination referred to
as U2) for the treatment of adult patients with chronic lymphocytic
leukemia (CLL) and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL)." The press
release stated that "[t]he decision to withdraw was based on
recently updated overall survival (OS) data from the UNITY-CLL
Phase 3 trial that showed an increasing imbalance in OS." On this
news, TG Therapeutics' stock price fell $1.93 per share, or 21.81%,
to close at $6.92 per share on April 18, 2022.
Then, on May 31, 2022, TG Therapeutics announced that the FDA
extended the Prescription Drug User Fee Act date for Ublituximab to
December 28, 2022 "to allow time to review a submission provided by
the Company in response to an FDA information request, which the
FDA deemed a major amendment." On this news, TG Therapeutics' stock
price fell $0.75 per share, or 14.51%, to close at $4.42 per share
on May 31, 2022.
Finally, on June 1, 2022, the FDA announced that, due to safety
concerns, it had withdrawn its approval for Umbralisib for the
treatment of MZL and FL. Specifically, the FDA provided that
"[u]pdated findings from the UNITY-CLL clinical trial continued to
show a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving
[UKONIQ]. As a result, we determined the risks of treatment with
[UKONIQ] outweigh its benefits." On this news, TG Therapeutics'
stock price fell $0.51 per share, or 11.53%, to close at $3.91 per
share on June 1, 2022.
Next Steps: If you acquired shares of TG Therapeutics, Inc. (TGTX)
securities between January 15, 2020 and May 13, 2022, you have
until September 16, 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.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas
(800) 350-6003
adumas@robbinsllp.com
Shareholder Information Form
About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002. [GN]
TRANS UNION: Settlement in Ramirez Suit Wins Initial OK
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SERGIO L. RAMIREZ v. TRANS
UNION, LLC, Case No. 3:12-cv-00632-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement as
follows:
1. The Court modifies the class definition as follows:
The Settlement Class includes
(1) the 1,853 class members Trans Union identified in its
pre-trial stipulation as individuals for whom Trans
Union had delivered a credit report containing OFAC
data to a third-party, and
(2) any class members from the remaining group of 6,332
individuals not identified in the stipulation who
submit a claim demonstrating publication of OFAC data
to a third-party during the class period.
2. The Court appoints Continental DataLogix, LLC as the
Settlement Administrator for providing Class Notice and
otherwise assisting in administration of the Settlement.
3. Within 5 days of this Order, Trans Union shall provide the
Settlement Administrator with updated mailing address
information for class members.
4. Within 15 days of the date of this Order, Trans Union
shall transfer $30,000 to the Settlement Administrator to
establish the Settlement Fund.
5. Within 30 days of the date of this Order, the Settlement
Administrator shall provide notice to the class in
accordance with the Notice Plan.
6. Within 30 days of the mailing of Notice, the Settlement
Administrator shall file a declaration attaching a copy of
the notices ultimately sent to the class and describing
the notice process.
7. Class Counsel shall file a motion for attorneys' fees and
costs by October 20, 2022.
8. The deadline for class members to object to the Settlement
Agreement and/or Class.
9. The Plaintiff shall file his Motion for Final Approval by
December 1, 2022. The motion shall include the information
suggested by the Northern District of California
Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements.
Counsel's motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is November
18, 2022.
10. The parties shall appear before this Court for a final
approval hearing on December 15, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in
Courtroom 8, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco,
California.
The Settlement Agreement provides that the Plaintiff's litigation
expenses can also be recovered out of the $4,500,000 allocated for
attorneys' fees and that the costs of settlement administration
will be deducted from the total Settlement Amount.
The Plaintiff's counsel is instructed to submit an itemized summary
of each category of costs with its motion for attorneys' fees so
that the Court can determine whether such costs are reasonable
expenses incurred for the benefit of the class.
Trans Union operates as global information and insights company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zDIfi8 at no extra charge.[CC]
TRIANGLE CROSS: Class Cert Filing Deadline Extended to August 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW SCAVUZZO, et al.,
v. TRIANGLE CROSS RANCH, LLC, SOCIETY OF OUR LADY OF THE MOST HOLY
TRINITY, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00215-SWS (D. Wyo.), the Hon.
Judge Kelly H. Rankin entered an order granting in part and denying
in part plaintiffs' motion for extension of deadline to move for
class certification.
The current briefing schedule regarding class certification is
vacated and the following schedule is imposed:
-- Class Certification Filing Deadline: August 12, 2022
-- Class Certification Response Deadline: August 26, 2022
-- Hearing on Class Certification: September 28, 2022
This amended scheduling will allow Plaintiffs the opportunity to
conduct necessary discovery and allow the parties to present their
arguments regarding class certification prior to the September 13,
2022, mediation, the Court says.
The Plaintiffs allege the parents of "troubled teen" minors paid to
send their children to one of two working ranches in Wyoming where
the teens were supposed to receive various forms of traditional and
cutting-edge therapy and schooling. The Plaintiffs contend it was
all a racket, though, as the ranches were light on the education,
even lighter on the therapy, and largely forced the teenagers to
labor for many hours per day under horrible conditions. The
Plaintiffs allege each Defendant was either directly involved with
the scam or knowingly benefitted from the forced labor or both.
The Plaintiffs assert federal causes of action for unlawful forced
labor, human trafficking, violations of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, and state-law causes of action for
negligence and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3voVGQj at no extra charge.[CC]
TROPICANA ATLANTIC: Rosa's Bid for Conditional Class Status OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BONNIE J. PASQUALE, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and JORGE L.
ROSA, v. TROPICANA ATLANTIC CITY CORP., doing business as TROPICANA
CASINO RESORT, Case No. 1:20-cv-06909-CPO-EAP (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge Christine P. O'Hearn entered an order that:
-- The Defendant's motion to strike the declaration of
plaintiff jorge l. rosa is denied without prejudice; and
-- The Plaintiff Jorge L. Rosa's motion for conditional class
certification is granted.
Tropicana Atlantic City offers a superior casino and resort
experience from fine dining to entertainment and nightlife right on
the boardwalk.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Je8vmg at no extra charge.[CC]
TRUEACCORD CORP: Rivers Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
DESTINY RIVERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRUEACCORD CORP., Defendant, Case No.
22-003547-CI (Fla. Cir., Pinellas Cty., July 22, 2022) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.
TRUEACCORD LLC provides debt recovery services. The Company offers
platform that bridges the gap between the creditor and those in
debt. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
UNITED PARCEL: $1.95M in Attys' Fees & Costs Awarded in BleachTech
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BLEACHTECH LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,
INC., an Ohio Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 14-12719 (E.D.
Mich.), Judge Denise Page Hood of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, grants the
Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees, Approval of Service Award,
and for Reimbursement of Expenses.
The Class Counsel is awarded $1,894,000 in attorneys' fees, which
is 33-1/3 % of the $5.7 million Settlement Fund reached in the
case. Further, the Class Counsel's request for reimbursement of
$54,882 in expenses to be reasonable and that the expenses were
incurred in furtherance of the action.
Plaintiffs Joe Solo and BleachTech LLC claim UPS charged customers
more for its "declared value coverage" insurance than the company
promised in its terms and conditions of service. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected UPS's motion to compel
arbitration in 2020.
The Court has recently granted final approval to the parties'
settlement. The Defendants agreed to establish a common fund of
approximately $5.7 million, and Notice has been disseminated to
approximately 90% of the nearly 2,150,00 members of the Settlement
Class.
On May 16, 2022, the Plaintiff filed its Motion for Fees. The
Plaintiff and the Class Counsel also filed declarations to enable
the Court to evaluate the fairness, adequacy and reasonableness of
the proposed attorney fees, costs, and Service Award. Following
Notice to the Settlement Class, no objections to the proposed fees,
costs, and Service Award were filed.
The matter came before the Court on June 28, 2022, for a Final
Approval Hearing pursuant to the Court's Preliminary Approval Order
dated April 8, 2022. Judge Hood carefully reviewed all of the
filings related to the Settlement, including the Motion for Fees
and heard argument on the Motion for Final Approval and the Motion
for Fees. After full consideration of the Motion for Fees and the
presentations of the Parties, she specifically concludes that the
proposed fees, costs, and Service Award are fair, adequate, and
reasonable, and an acceptable amount to compensate the Plaintiff
and the Class Counsel for litigating the claims filed for the
benefit of the Settlement Class.
Judge Hood finds that the Class Counsel's request for Service Award
to be paid to Plaintiff BleachTech is appropriate, and the amount
of $5,000 requested is reasonable. Therefore, Plaintiffs BleachTech
will be paid a Service Award of $5,000 from the Settlement Fund.
The Settlement Administrator is directed to pay the attorneys'
fees, expenses, and Service Award from the Settlement Common Fund
as provided in the Settlement Agreement. Fifty percent of
reasonable costs of Notice and administration of the Settlement
will be paid from the Settlement Common Fund; UPS will pay the
other fifty percent.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2s3t6xfs from Leagle.com.
Additional information on the case is available at:
https://www.upsdeclaredvaluesettlement.com/
WAKEFERN FOOD: Graham Crackers Falsely Advertised, Class Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak of ClassAction.org reports that in Feldman v. Wakefern
Food Corp., a proposed class action lawsuit alleges Bowl &
Basket-brand graham crackers are falsely advertised in that they
contain less whole grain flour than consumers are led to expect.
The 17-page lawsuit claims that defendant Wakefern Food Corp. has
used representations on the product's front label, such as "Graham
Crackers," "Sugar Honey" and a stamp stating "8g or more [whole
grain] per serving," to imply that the graham crackers contain more
whole grain and honey than they actually do. According to the case,
however, the graham crackers' ingredients list reveals that
enriched flour is the product's predominant flour ingredient over
graham flour.
"The labeling gives consumers the impression it has a greater
absolute and relative amount of whole grain graham flour compared
to non-whole grain flour than it does and that it contains a non-de
minimis amount of honey," the complaint contends.
According to the lawsuit, consumers "increasingly prefer" whole
grains to non-whole, or refined, grains because they contain more
fiber and nutrients. Per the case, the name "Graham Crackers"
implies that the Bowl & Basket product is predominantly made with
graham, or whole grain, flour.
The lawsuit argues that even though the graham crackers' front
label contains a stamp stating the product contains "8g or more
[whole grain] per serving," this representation is misleading given
the crackers contain mostly non-whole grain flour.
"Consumers have no way to determine the proportion of whole grain
graham flour to refined white flour based on this disclosure," the
suit states.
The case goes on to allege that the honey used in the graham
crackers is not to provide a honey taste but to lend the product a
darker hue associated with whole grain.
"The small amount of honey contributes to consumers getting the
misleading impression the Product contains more whole grain graham
flour than it does," the complaint contends. "To the extent the
Product has a 'honey' taste, this is due to the added ‘Natural
Flavor.'"
The lawsuit says Wakefern has violated federal and state food
labeling regulations by failing to disclose on the graham crackers'
front label the addition of natural flavor that contributes to the
product's characterizing honey taste.
The case looks to represent anyone in New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Delaware and Connecticut who purchased
the Bowl & Basket graham crackers during the applicable statute of
limitations period. [GN]
WALMART INC: Faces Class Suit Over Fair Workweek Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
ClassAction.org reports that in DONALD WASHINGTON and SYMONE
WILDER, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. WALMART INC, filed in Philadelphia County Court of
Common Pleas, July 2022, two former Walmart employees claim in a
proposed class action that the retailer failed to comply with
Philadelphia's Fair Workweek Law, which requires employers in
certain industries to provide workers with predictable schedules
and sufficient advance notice.
The 15-page case alleges that although Walmart and other retail,
fast food and hospitality employers were required to comply with
the Philadelphia Fair Workweek Employment Standards Ordinance by
April 1, 2020, the defendant failed to do so. More specifically,
the lawsuit alleges Walmart failed to provide employees with proper
advance notice of their schedules, required them to work shifts
with less than nine hours in between, and failed to offer available
shifts to existing employees before hiring new ones.
According to the case, the two plaintiffs worked at a Roosevelt
Avenue, Philadelphia Walmart until July 2022 and September 2021,
respectively. When Walmart first hired the individuals, the suit
says, they were not provided with a good faith estimate of their
expected schedules as required by the Fair Workweek Law.
The retailer also failed to provide workers with at least 10 days'
notice of their work schedules prior to January 1, 2021, and
thereafter did not always provide at least 14 days' notice, the
suit says. Moreover, Walmart regularly changed employees' schedules
by more than 20 minutes without paying them "predictability pay" as
required under the city ordinance, the lawsuit alleges.
Per the case, Walmart employees were also required to work shifts
on consecutive days with less than nine hours in between without
their consent and without being paid $40 for each such shift.
Further, although Walmart was required to notify current workers
about how to pick up available shifts and whether the shifts are
recurring before hiring new employees, the retailer failed to do
so, the lawsuit claims.
Finally, the suit says that Walmart failed to provide the
plaintiffs with a compliant written notice of its policy for
"offering and distributing work."
The lawsuit looks to represent hourly non-exempt employees who
provide retail services to the public and work or worked for
Walmart Inc. in Philadelphia during the relevant timeframe.
Plaintiffs' lead counsel:
Nadia Hewka (Pa Bar No. 76842)
David Huang (Pa Bar No. 331118)
COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
1424 Chestnut St
Philadelphia, PA 19102
(215) 981-3794
(215) 981-0434
nhewka@clsphila.org
dhuang@clsphila.org [GN]
WALMART INC: Granola Bars Falsely Advertised, Class Action Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak of ClassAction.org reports that in Vazquez v. Walmart,
Inc., a proposed class action alleges Walmart's Great Value-brand
"Oats & Honey" granola bars are falsely advertised in that they
contain only a trace amount of honey amid "numerous other
ingredients."
According to the 16-page lawsuit, consumers who view the granola
bars' front label statements -- including "Oats & Honey-Crunchy
Granola Bars," "Crunchy Oats . . . Sweet Honey," "Made With Whole
Grains" and "19g Whole Grain Per Serving" -- are led to expect that
the product is sweetened primarily with honey and contains minimal
ingredients other than oats and honey.
The suit alleges, however, that these representations are false and
misleading given that the Great Value granola bars are sweetened
primarily with sugar and contain a "negligible" amount of honey,
among various other ingredients.
"Consumers relying on the front label will be satisfied that whole
grain oats are the main ingredient but will be dissatisfied honey
is a minor ingredient, especially compared to the amount of sugar,"
the complaint contends.
Per the suit, consumers increasingly prefer foods sweetened with
honey over sugar due to perceptions that honey is more natural and
healthier than sugar. According to the complaint, the Great Value
Oats & Honey ingredients list reveals that sugar is the second-most
predominant ingredient after whole grain rolled oats, while honey
is listed fifth.
The lawsuit goes on to claim that although Walmart showcases only
oats and honey on the granola bars' front label -- a representation
that the case says "dovetails with increased consumer demand for
foods with limited, fewer ingredients" -- the product contains
various other ingredients besides oats and honey. Per the suit,
there is "no commercial or technological barrier" to making a
granola bar that contains only oats and honey.
The lawsuit claims consumers have overpaid for the Great Value Oats
& Honey granola bars as a result of Walmart's misrepresentations.
The case looks to represent anyone in New York, Montana, Wyoming,
Idaho, Kentucky, West Virginia, North Dakota, Mississippi and Utah
who purchased the Great Value Oats & Honey granola bars within the
applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]
WALMART INC: Recalls, Class Action Lawsuits Pile Up in 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett of TopClassActions.org reports that Walmart has been
the target of numerous class action lawsuits in the past month with
claims ranging from false advertising to misleading representations
and failing to properly monitor its money transfer service.
The big box retailer is no stranger to being on the receiving end
of class action lawsuits on account of its extensive product line
and popularity amongst consumers.
Walmart also recalled more than 12,000 Tony Hawk brand helmets this
month over concerns they could fail to prevent a head injury in the
event of a crash.
Walmart class action alleges retailer falsely markets coffee
creamer
Walmart faced claims earlier in July that it falsely markets its
Great Value brand Chocolate Caramel Coffee Creamer as a "coffee
creamer" instead of a "whitener."
The consumer behind the class action lawsuit claims the product
does not contain enough milk to warrant it being marketed as a
coffee creamer.
"Consumers are misled to expect the presence of cream from dairy
ingredients," the Walmart class action states.
Walmart is accused of using water and sunflower oil in its coffee
creamer in place of cream as a way to save costs.
Walmart class action claims Spring Valley Garcinia Cambogia
supplements not effective for weight loss as advertised
Also in July month, consumers alleged Walmart falsely advertised
that its Spring Valley Garcinia Cambogia supplements can
effectively aid in weight loss management.
The consumers behind the class action lawsuit claim Walmart makes
false and misleading statements about the actual weight loss
benefits provided by the supplement.
The Spring Valley Garcinia Cambogia supplements allegedly contain
hydroxycitric acid and chromium picolinate, which are
scientifically proven not to benefit weight loss, according to the
Walmart class action.
Walmart is accused of violating California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.
Great Value recycling drawstring bags not recyclable, Walmart class
action claims
Walmart also faced a complaint earlier in July that it
misrepresents to consumers that its Great Value brand Recycling
Drawstring Bags are recyclable.
The Great Value trash bags are not actually recyclable since they
contain low-density polyethylene plastic, a pair of consumers
allege.
"In truth, the bags contaminate the recyclable waste stream,
decrease the recyclability of otherwise recyclable materials and
are not themselves recyclable," the Walmart class action states.
Reynolds Consumer Products, which manufactures Hefty Recycling
Trash Bags, was also named as a defendant in the class action
lawsuit.
FTC claims Walmart fails to prevent fraud on money transfer
service
In June month, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint
against Walmart over claims the company has failed to prevent
fraudsters from using its money transfer service to steal from
consumers.
The FTC argues Walmart has failed to adopt policies that would help
detect and prevent the presence of money transfer services fraud.
Walmart's money transfer service, the FTC says, was at the center
of $197 million worth of fraud from between January 2013 and
December 2018.
"As a result of Walmart's failure to take appropriate steps to
mitigate the problem, consumers have lost substantial sums to
frauds through money transfers effected at Walmart," the FTC says.
Walmart overcomes claims personal care products not
'hypoallergenic' as advertised
Also last month, Walmart escaped claims that its "hypoallergenic"
personal care products caused skin irritation and allergies.
Consumers claimed Walmart's marketing of the personal care products
as "hypoallergenic" is deceiving due to them allegedly containing
allergens and chemicals.
Further, consumers claimed the Walmart products caused serious skin
and eye damage that lasted for more than 21 days.
The judge overseeing the class action lawsuit determined, however,
that the consumer's amended complaint was "more like after-the-fact
buyers' remorse than genuine economic injury."
Walmart pays consumers in weighted goods settlement
Consumers began to receive checks in May stemming from a $9.5
million class action settlement resolving claims it inaccurately
priced certain weighted goods.
The settlement agreement was made to benefit consumers who
purchased certain weighted pork, beef, fish, poultry and other
packaged goods allegedly sold by Walmart with a final sales price
that differed from the posted sales price.
Walmart has faced a consistent stream of class action lawsuits this
year over a variety of allegations revolving around claims such as
false advertising, wage violations and product safety, among other
things. [GN]
WARRANTECH CONSUMER: Scheduling Order Entered in Elliot Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kenneth Elliott, Susan
Young, and Gloria Balala Saito, v. Warrantech Consumer Product
Services, Inc. and Tag Warranty Corporation f/k/a AMT Warranty
Corporation, Case No. 4:22-cv-00091-MLB (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge
Michael Brown entered an order approving the parties' joint
preliminary report and discovery plan.
-- Class certification discovery shall commence on July 11,
2022, and conclude on November 14, 2022.
-- Factual and expert discovery shall commence on November 14,
2022, and conclude on July 14, 2023.
Warrantech is a company that markets and administers extended
warranties and service contracts for vehicles, consumer products,
and homes.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cMstbQ at no extra charge.[CC]
WELLS FARGO: First Amended CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Lanning
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL LANNING and MARCIA
FRANCIS, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees,
v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:20-cv-02055-GBD-GWG
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered a first amended civil case
management plan and scheduling order as follows:
1. No additional parties may be joined after August 26, 2022,
except with leave of the Court.
2. No amendment to the pleadings will be permitted after
August 26, 2022.
3. Discovery relating to the merits of any named plaintiff's
claims and discovery relevant to proving the elements of
Rule 23 shall be commenced in time to be completed by May
3, 2023.
4. Plaintiffs' expert report(s) in connection with class
certification shall be filed by January 9, 2023.
Plaintiffs' experts are to be deposed by February 8, 2023.
5. Defendant's expert report(s) in connection with class
certification shall be filed by March 10, 2023.
Defendant's experts are to be deposed by April 10, 2023.
6. Plaintiffs' class certification motion shall be filed by
May 3, 2023.
7. Dispositive motions on the merits of the named plaintiffs'
claims, if any, shall be filed by May 31, 2023.
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association operates as a bank.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vogveO at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com
dcimera@fslawfirm.com
- and -
Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP, LLC
100 First Avenue, Suite 650
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 227-0763
Facsimile: (412) 774-1994
E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Timothy M. Watson, Esq.
John P. Phillips, Esq.
Matthew Gagnon, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
700 Milam Street, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 225-2300
Facsimile: (713) 225-2340
E-mail: twatson@seyfarth.com
jphillips@seyfarth.com
mgagnon@seyfarth.com
WYNN RESORTS: Ferris Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN V. FERRIS, et al., v.
WYNN RESORTS LIMITED, et al., Case No. (), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:
1. certifying this action as a class action on behalf of:
"all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Wynn Resorts Limited securities between March 28,
2016 and February 12, 2018, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period") and were damaged thereby;"
Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the officers and
directors of the Company at all relevant times, members of
their immediate families and their legal representatives,
heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which
Defendants have or had a controlling interest;
2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and
3. appointing Lead Counsel Pomerantz LLP as Class Counsel and
Muehlbauer Law Office, Ltd. as Local/Liaison Counsel.
This securities action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 against Wynn
Resorts, a global casino operator, and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.
The Action arises from revelations that Wynn Resorts' founder,
namesake, and former-CEO, the Defendant Stephen Wynn, was involved
in a long running pattern of sexual misconduct against Wynn Resorts
employees, which was condoned and covered up by Wynn Resorts senior
management for years.
In particular, during the Class Period, the Defendants issued a
series of statements that effectively denied that Defendant Wynn
had engaged in any misconduct. The truth began to emerge on January
26, 2018, when the Wall Street Journal published a scathing expose
of Defendant Wynn replete with dozens of anecdotes regarding his
abusive behavior (the "WSJ Article").
Wynn Resorts stock price plummeted in response to these
revelations.
On July 28, 2021, this Court denied, in part, the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' SAC. In particular, the Court
held that Plaintiffs had adequately alleged claims pursuant to
section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act based on several
alleged misstatements made by Defendants on March 28, 2016, April
5, 2016 and January 26, 2018 in response to public allegations made
first by Elaine Wynn, and then later by the Wall Street Journal,
which revealed Defendant Wynn's "serious misconduct."
Thereafter, upon the Defendants' request and over Plaintiffs'
opposition, Magistrate Judge Youchah bifurcated discovery into two
phases: Phase One, pertaining to class certification issues, and
Phase Two, pertaining to merits and damages issues. ECF No. 183.
The parties have substantially completed documents productions for
Phase One discovery.
During the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly failed to
disclose and otherwise affirmatively covered up a long-running
pattern by Defendant Wynn of sexually harassing Wynn Resorts'
female employees. On March 28, 2016, Defendant Wynn's ex-wife,
Elaine Wynn, filed her answer and crossclaim in the Okada
Litigation.
The Counterclaim specifically identified a "multi-million-dollar
payment" by Defendant Wynn to settle allegations by a former Wynn
employee that he engaged in "serious misconduct on Company property
against at least one Company employee."
The Defendants swiftly denied Ms. Wynn's allegations in a press
release issued that same day (the "March 2016 Press Release"). The
March 2016 Press Release first denied the Counterclaim's
"allegations regarding our Board, its composition and its
independence" and "the use of company assets." It then discussed
the Company in much more general terms the lawsuit says.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 18, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PFrokp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq.
MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD.
7915 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 104
Las Vegas, NE 89117
Telephone: (702) 330-4505
Facsimile: (702) 825-0141
E-mail: andrew@mlolegal.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
Murielle J. Steven Walsh, Esq.
Elina Rakhlin, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
mjsteven@pomlaw.com
erakhlin@pomlaw.com
- and -
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Daniel Tyre-Karp, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
dtyrekarp@rosenlegal.com
XEROX CORP: Class of Employees Certified in Vollmer ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL VOLLMER and MARILYN VOLLMER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. XEROX
CORPORATION, PLAN ADMINISTRATOR COMMITTEE, XEROX MEDICAL CARE PLAN
FOR RETIRED ENHANCED EARLY RETIREMENT EMPLOYEES, XEROX DENTAL CARE
PLAN, and XEROX CORPORATION PROGRAM, Defendants, Case No.
20-CV-6979 (CJS) (W.D.N.Y.), Judge Charles J. Siragusa of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York, grants the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In October 1986, Xerox Senior VP D.M. Reid sent a letter offering
an Enhanced Early Retirement Program to eligible Xerox employees.
In 1987, Paul Vollmer accepted Xerox's offer to participate in the
ERP. Accordingly, at age 50 Vollmer retired from employment with
Xerox and along with his wife, Marilyn Vollmer, was awarded
lifetime medical coverage under the Xerox Medical Care Plan for
Retired Employees. Until 2019, Xerox paid the full cost of the Old
Plan premiums for the Vollmers and all other participants in the
ERP. In 2019, however, Xerox began requiring the Vollmers and all
other Old Plan participants to pay 50% of their monthly medical and
dental insurance premiums if they wanted continued coverage under
the Old Plan.
The Vollmers filed the putative class action in 2020 on behalf of
themselves and all former Xerox employees who retired under the
ERP, alleging that its requirement that ERP participants contribute
to Old Plan premium payments constituted a breach of its fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
and improperly denied vested plan benefits to ERP participants.
In January 2020, the Court denied the Vollmers' motion for a
preliminary injunction. In February 2022, the Court awarded summary
judgment to Xerox on the Vollmers' breach of fiduciary duty claim,
but denied summary judgment to either party on the denial of
benefits claim. Two months later, the Vollmers filed the instant
motion for class certification.
The Vollmers propose a class of: All former Xerox employees who
elected to retire pursuant to an Enhanced Early Retirement Program
(ERP), set forth in a letter and attachments dated October 17,
1986, from D.M. Reid, Senior Vice President, Personnel and Senior
Staff Officer of Xerox, and their spouses, who were receiving or
eligible to receive retiree health benefits from Xerox as of Dec.
31, 2018.
In addition, they seek certification as representatives of the
class, and ask that their present counsel be appointed as the class
counsel. Xerox opposes the motion, arguing that the Vollmers fail
to satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements under Rule
23(a).
The Vollmers maintain that they have satisfied all of the
requirements for class certification under Rule 23. First, they
provide evidence that supports their estimate that the proposed
class consists of approximately 900 members, which would satisfy
the numerosity requirement. Second and third, they argue that they
satisfy the commonality and typicality requirement because the
question at the core of the case --whether Xerox's contribution
requirement violates the terms of the Old Plan for ERP participants
-- is common to all proposed class members, and was directed at and
affects both the Vollmers and the rest of the class. Fourth, they
state that they satisfy the adequacy of representation requirement
because they "have precisely the same interest in enforcing their
right to lifetime, non-contributory coverage under the Old Plan as
the members of the class," and their attorneys are "qualified,
experienced and able to conduct the litigation."
In addition, the Vollmers argue that they satisfy the requirements
of Rule 23(b)(1). They state that Rule 23(b)(1)(A) is satisfied
because "if two courts came to different conclusions as to whether
the terms of the Old Plan permit contribution requirements, Xerox
would" be saddled with two incompatible standards of conduct.
Xerox argue that the Court should deny the Vollmers' motion, and
limit the class on the grounds that they "cannot satisfy the
commonality and typicality requirements for the entire class they
seek to represent if their claim is based on the ERP
communications." This challenge is based on two premises.
First, it characterizes the Court's decision on the summary
judgment motions as holding that several communications between
Xerox and employees eligible for participation in the ERP "do not
comprise, and are not a component of, the governing Old Plan
Document, making them irrelevant." Second, Xerox states that there
are two groups of Old Plan participants relative to the ERP: Those
who were 52 or younger when the ERP was offered, and those who were
53 or older. It argues that the Vollmers cannot satisfy the
commonality and typicality elements of Rule 23(a), because the 52
or younger group raises different legal issues than the 53 and
older group.
Xerox therefore argues that the class should be narrowed to only
the group of ERP participants who were 52 years old and younger,
and vested in the Old Plan only by virtue of their acceptance of
the ERP.
Judge Siragusa finds that the Vollmers have demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that they have satisfied the
prerequisites of class certification under Rule 23(a): numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy. They have also demonstrated
by a preponderance of the evidence that they satisfy Rule
23(b)(1)(A) because they have shown that the prosecution of
separate actions by other class members would create a risk of
inconsistent adjudications that could establish incompatible
standards of conduct for Xerox.
As to the Vollmers's request to be named as representatives of the
class, Jugd eSiragusa finds that their interests coincide with the
other members of the class in that all members seek to enforce
Xerox's purported promise under the Old Plan to provide
non-contributory lifetime coverage. Moreover, they have
demonstrated vigorous prosecution of the class' claims by retaining
their proposed class counsel and pursuing the present litigation
relentlessly.
Lastly, the Vollmers put forward Rupp, Baase, Pfalzgraf, Cunningham
& Coppola LLC and Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC as their
proposed class counsel. To date, these two firms have vigorously
pursued the Vollmers' claims, and have submitted evidence of
extensive experience in class action litigation. They have
demonstrated knowledge of the applicable law, diligence in the
pursuit of the Vollmers' claims, and have committed significant
resources to the representation of their clients. Accordingly,
Judge Siragusa finds that the counsel has the ability to fairly and
adequately represent the interests of the class.
For the foregoing reasons, he grants the Vollmer's motion to
certify class with respect to the class defined as "All former
Xerox employees who elected to retire pursuant to an Enhanced Early
Retirement Program ('ERP'), set forth in a letter and attachments
dated Oct. 17, 1986, from D.M. Reid, Senior Vice President,
Personnel and Senior Staff Officer of Xerox, and their spouses, who
were receiving or eligible to receive retiree health benefits from
Xerox as of Dec. 31, 2018."
The Court certified (i) the Vollmers as the representatives of the
foregoing class; and (ii) Tybe A. Brett and Joel R. Hurt of
Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC, and David R. Pfalzgraf and
Matthew D. Miller of Rupp Baase Pfalzgraf Cunningham LLC as the
class counsel.
The parties will contact the Court within five days of the date of
the Order to schedule a status conference.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2022 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3jcxf3hb from Leagle.com.
ZYNGA INC: Rider to Protective Order in Ferrando Suit Okayed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TONDA FERRANDO and DEX MARZANO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ZYNGA INC.,
a Delaware corporation. Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-214-RSL (W.D.
Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington in Seattle approves an Agreed Rider
To Protective Order Regarding The Use And Disclosure Of Discovery
Produced By Nonparty Meta Platforms, Inc.
The agreement is entered into between and among nonparty Meta and
the Parties to the case. Meta will produce documents in the action
that contain sensitive information that is necessary to provide
notice of the Class Action Settlement Agreement to members of the
Settlement Class because the Defendant does not possess this
information. The agreement is intended to supplement the protective
order entered by the Court on July 15, 2022.
Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Judge Lasnik finds good cause for the Rider.
The Meta Protected Material designated under the terms of the Rider
will be used by the Parties solely for the purpose of providing
notice to and verifying and paying the recovery amount owed to each
member of the Settlement Class. No Meta Protected Material provided
by Meta to the Class Action Administrator under the terms of the
Rider may be shared with any of the Parties, unless specifically
authorized by the Rider. It is the intention of Meta and the
Parties that the Rider will protect all materials produced by Meta
in the Action unless otherwise specified.
The protections conferred by the Rider cover not only the Meta
Protected Material governed by it, but also any information copied
or extracted therefrom, as well as all copies, excerpts, summaries,
or compilations thereof, plus testimony, conversations, or
presentations by the Parties or their counsel in court or in other
settings that might reveal Meta Protected Material.
Nothing in the Rider will prevent or restrict Meta's own disclosure
or use of its own Meta Protected Material for any purpose, and
nothing in the Rider will preclude Meta from showing its Meta
Protected Material to an individual who prepared the Meta Protected
Material.
Even after the termination of the case, the confidentiality
obligations imposed by the Order will remain in effect until a
Producing Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order
otherwise directs, subject to the Final Disposition clause
therein.
Rider is intended to provide no mechanism to the Parties through
which they can challenge the designation or protected status of
Meta Protected Materials.
If at any time Meta Protected Material is subpoenaed by any court,
arbitral, administrative, or legislative body, the party to whom
the subpoena or other request is directed will immediately give
prompt written notice thereof to Meta and to its counsel and will
provide Meta with an opportunity to move for a protective order
regarding the production of Meta Protected Materials implicated by
the subpoena.
Absent written permission from Meta or a court Order secured after
appropriate notice to all interested persons, the Parties may not
file or disclose in the public record any Meta Protected Material.
Not later than 90 days after closure of the Final Disposition of
the case, each Party and the Class Action Administrator will return
all Discovery Material of a Producing Party to the respective
outside counsel of the Producing Party or destroy such Material, at
the option of Meta. For purposes of the Order, "Final Disposition"
occurs after an order, mandate, or dismissal finally terminating
the above-captioned action with prejudice, including all appeals.
All parties that have received any such Discovery Material, as well
as the Class Action Administrator, will certify in writing that all
such materials have been returned to counsel for Meta or
destroyed.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mrjabpnb from Leagle.com.
[*] Florida Class Actions Over Patients' Health Info Discussed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlton Fields wrote on JD Supra that while not unheard of, class
actions against medical service providers that relate directly to
the provision of medical treatment are uncommon. However, class
actions are frequently filed in Florida courts against medical
service providers and their vendors arising from issues that do not
relate directly to the provision of medical treatment.
Just a few examples could be: dunning letters to patients, which
could be alleged to violate the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act; telephone calls inviting patients to a seminar,
which could be alleged to be a violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act; or a case arising from a data breach alleging that
patients' information was exposed on the dark web.
As part of standard class action discovery, the named plaintiff in
these types of cases will serve discovery requests and potential
third-party subpoenas seeking the names and contact information of
the other individuals in the putative class.
As an example, here is a typical discovery request directed to a
defendant in a TCPA class action involving text messages sent to
patients of a medical practice inviting them to a seminar: "Please
produce a list of all the target names, telephone numbers, and any
contact information of the individuals who were sent the same text
message that the Plaintiff was sent."
Class actions over any subject involving medical practices
typically have similar requests, as the named plaintiff and their
counsel will want to know the names of the other people in the
class. But when the class action involves a medical practice,
hospital or other medical provider, both the federal Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and Florida's
constitutional right to privacy are implicated.
HIPAA prohibits health care providers from disclosing to third
parties any patient health information that could lead to the
identification of the patient without the patient's express consent
or a qualified protective order.
The act does allow disclosure of "protected health information in
the course of any judicial or administrative proceeding . . . [i]n
response to an order of a court" without notice to a patient or a
patient's express authorization.[1] State and federal trial courts
in Florida do indeed enter such "qualified protective orders" upon
request by the parties.[2]
So how does HIPAA impact a discovery request in a class action in
which medical records may be at issue? It means that absent
affirmative consent from the patients, a qualified protective order
is necessary. And that is how the issue is routinely handled.
But that is not the end of the story in Florida -- and the paucity
of case law on the matter suggests that this issue has not received
sufficient attention.
This is because Florida law provides stronger constitutional and
statutory protections for citizens' medical information, including
requiring patient notification upon issuance of a subpoena seeking
disclosure of that patient's medical information. And both the
state and federal courts in Florida are in accord that HIPAA does
not preempt such heightened protections.[3]
As the Florida Supreme Court has repeatedly held -- most recently
in 2017 in Weaver v. Myers -- the Florida Constitution "explicitly
provides [its citizens] a right to privacy."[4] In Weaver, the
Florida Supreme Court recognized that this right "is broader, more
fundamental, and more highly guarded than any federal
counterpart."[5]
The court stated that "[a] patient's medical records enjoy a
confidential status by virtue of the right to privacy contained in
the Florida Constitution."[6] The court also warned that "[t]he
potential for invasion of privacy is inherent in the litigation
process."[7] Likewise, in Estate of Carrillo v. Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation in 2012, and Hansen v. Uber Technologies Inc.
in 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida and the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, respectively, have recognized that "Florida law recognizes
the confidentiality of a patient's medical record pursuant to the
Right of Privacy clause, contained in Article I, Section 23 of the
Florida Constitution."[8]
Florida Statutes Section 456.057, implementing Florida's broad
constitutional right to privacy, "unequivocally creates 'a broad
and express privilege of confidentiality as to the medical records
and the medical condition of a patient,'" as stated by Florida's
Second District Court of Appeal in Crowley v. Lamming.[9] Except as
otherwise provided, Section 456.057 states that a patient's medical
records:
-- may not be furnished to, and the medical condition of the
patient may not be discussed with, any person other than the
patient or the patient's legal representative or other health care
practitioners and providers involved in the care or treatment of
the patient, except upon written authorization of the patient.[10]
According to the statute, however, such records may "be furnished
without written authorization . . . [i]n any civil or criminal
action, unless otherwise prohibited by law, upon the issuance of a
subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction and proper notice
to the patient or the patient's legal representative by the party
seeking such records."[11]
You may be wondering what the protections for "medical records"
have to do with the names and contact information of potential
members of a putative class. The answer to that question lies in a
2020 decision issued by Florida's First District Court of Appeal in
Saints120 LLC v. Moore, in which the appellate court quashed a
discovery order compelling the production of documents reflecting
the names, addresses and next of kin of nursing home residents who
were present in the same unit as the decedent.[12]
In relevant part, the appellate court held that nonparty residents
were entitled to notice under Section 456.057(7)(a)(3) before any
release of their medical records, and that "giving notice to those
residents before releasing their medical records is paramount to
protecting their privacy interests."
In other words, the mere fact of being a patient at the medical
facility was itself a medical record, as the court noted that "the
principal priority is to protect the non-party patients'
identities." At least one court has followed Saints120 to preclude
the discovery of similar information.[13]
Getting back to class action discovery, the Saints120 definition of
a "medical record" covered by Section 456.057 may indeed render
class treatment more difficult. Keep in mind that in Saints120, the
error the appellate court identified was that the trial court
failed to require predisclosure notice to the impacted patients.
While the opinion doesn't indicate how many patients were affected,
one would imagine that it would be a few to, at most, a few dozen
people. That is not an intractable burden.[14]
Notwithstanding the clear language in Saints120, many courts
continue to order the disclosure of nonparty medical records if a
HIPAA order is in place. A recent example is an order issued in
February by Judge Brian Davis of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, in McCrimmion v. Centurion of Florida
LLC.[15]
In McCrimmion, the estate of an inmate who died while at a Florida
correctional facility is suing the facility for claims arising out
of medical care the decedent inmate allegedly received or needed
when he was an inmate at that correctional facility.
The plaintiff there served an interrogatory asking the defendant to
identify every Clostridium difficile[16] case at the correctional
facility during a specified time frame, "along with inmate names,
information about diagnosis and treatment, and medical personnel
involved," and to produce the "medical records of those inmates
identified in response to the interrogatory."
The defendant objected to producing this information for several
reasons, including HIPAA.[17] However, the court rejected that
argument, "given the parties are bound by a HIPAA qualified
protective order."[18]
The problem is -- as is often the case -- that the HIPAA qualified
protective order[19] does not say anything about Section 456.057.
It also appears that the defendant did not raise an objection under
Section 456.057, and only cited HIPAA to support a medical
objection.[20]
One piece of good news is that litigants and courts are not without
a road map for how to navigate privacy statutes that require notice
to nonparties before their information will be released.
Specifically, in Lee v. Global Tel*Link Corp. in 2018,[21] Judge
Otis Wright of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California had to work through a state statute that required
nonparty telephone subscribers to be provided notice, and an
opportunity to be heard, before their information would be released
pursuant to a subpoena.
The court dealt with the requirements of that statute by ordering a
process wherein a third-party administrator would send notice to
the subscribers advising them that their personal information was
being requested, and providing them with an opportunity to object.
The path in Lee was similar to one used in other cases, including a
case from a federal district court in Pennsylvania.[22]
In any event, the right to privacy under the Florida Constitution
and Florida Statutes Section 456.057 is an important right that
this author -- and the more than 21 million other Florida citizens
-- enjoys. There is no shortage of class actions and other
litigation against medical service providers in Florida, so it will
be helpful if this issue starts to get raised in these cases, and
litigants can benefit from reasoned decisions on the issue.
[1] See 45 C.F.R. Sec. 164.512(e)(1)(i).
[2] See, e.g., Rudolph v. Correct Care Sols. LLC , No.
5:15-cv-00317, 2016 WL 4157367, at *1 (N.D. Fla. July 29, 2016)
(Hinkle, J.); Crosswinds Rehab Inc. v. Am. Eldercare Inc., No.
2017-CA-023840, 2018 WL 7626055, at *1 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. April
19, 2018) (Thomas, J.).
[3] Paylan v. Fitzgerald , 223 So. 3d 431, 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
("HIPAA only preempts state laws relating to substantive privacy
rights concerning individually identifiable health information
which are less stringent than HIPAA's privacy protections"); Murphy
v. Dulay , 768 F.3d 1360, 1368–77 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding that
an authorization form required by Florida statute for use in
advance of a medical negligence suit was not preempted by HIPAA).
[4] Weaver v. Myers, 229 So. 3d 1118, 1125 (Fla. 2017) ("Every
natural person has the right to be let alone and free from
governmental intrusion into the person's private life except as
otherwise provided herein" (citing Fla. Const. Art. I, Sec. 23)).
[5] Id. at 1125.
[6] Id. at 1126 (citing State v. Johnson, 814 So. 2d 390, 393 (Fla.
2002)).
[7] Id.
[8] Estate of Carrillo v. FDIC , No. 1:11-cv-22668, 2012 WL
1831596, at *3 (S.D. Fla. May 18, 2012) (Simonton, M.J.); Hansen v.
Uber Techs. Inc. , No. 6:17-cv-01559, 2018 WL 7361084, at *2 (M.D.
Fla. Aug. 13, 2018) (Kelly, M.J.) (same).
[9] Crowley v. Lamming , 66 So. 3d 355, 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
(citing Acosta v. Richter , 671 So. 2d 149, 154 (Fla. 1996)).
[10] Fla. Stat. Sec. 456.057(7)(a).
[11] Fla. Stat. Sec. 456.057(7)(a)(3) (emphasis added); see also
Graham v. Dacheikh , 991 So. 2d 932, 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
(holding that, in a negligence action, the trial court departed
from the essential requirements of the law by compelling a
physician who examined the plaintiff to disclose reports from prior
examinations of other personal injury plaintiffs without notice to
such nonparties); Carrillo, 2012 WL 1831596 at *3 (noting that
Florida Statutes Section 456.057 "restricts the disclosure of
medical records without a patient's written authorization" or at
least a demonstration that the patient's "received sufficient
notice of the . . . intent to subpoena the[ir] [medical] records");
Wollschlaeger v. Governor, Fla. , 848 F.3d 1293, 1314 (11th Cir.
2017) ("Florida law . . . places significant limits on the
disclosure of a patient's confidential medical records" (citing
Fla. Stat. Sec.456.057(7)(a))).
[12] 292 So. 3d 1209(Fla.1stDCA2020).
[13] See Durrah v. Bowling Green Inn of Pensacola LLC , No.
3:20-cv-05234, 2020 WL 8910886, at *6 (N.D. Fla. June 10, 2020)
(Timothy, M.J.) (evaluating a discovery request for names and
contact information of patients of a medical facility who may have
witnessed an incident at the center of the case, and concluding
that the individuals sought medical treatment "presumably with the
knowledge they were doing so in confidence," and that their
identities were protected from disclosure under the applicable
Florida law).
[14] The decision in Reyes v. BCA Financial Services Inc., No.
1:16-cv-24077, 2018 WL 5004864 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2018) (Goodman,
M.J.), does merit discussion. Reyes was a TCPA case involving debt
collection calls to the patients of a medical practice. The
defendant argued that Section 456.057 prevented an obstacle to
class certification, because the plaintiff's expert would have to
provide the class members' protected health information to various
third parties. The court rejected this argument, noting that the
"stipulated protective order that the parties agreed to in this
case, however, specifically provides that the parties and their
attorneys shall be permitted to use or disclose the confidential
information for purposes of prosecuting or defending this action,
including any appeals of this case. This includes, but is not
necessarily limited to,identification of potential class members
and disclosure to attorneys, experts, consultants, court personnel,
court reporters, copy services, trial consultants, and other
entities or persons involved in the litigation process.
Id. at *6. Thus, while not explicitly stated, Reyes can be said to
have been decided on the basis of waiver (i.e., the knowing
decision to give up a potential argument), as opposed to
examination of counters of Section 456.057 on its merits.
[15] No. 3:20-cv-00036, 2022 WL 356160, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7,
2022) (Davis, J.).
[16] The inmate at issued allegedly "died from pseudo membranous
colitis, caused by an infection called Clostridium difficile." Id.
at *1.
[17] Id. at *8.
[18] Id.
[19] McCrimmion v. Centurion of Fla. LLC ., No. 3:20-cv-0036, 2020
WL 13032624, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 21, 2020) (Klindt, M.J.).
[20] McCrimmion v. Centurion of Fla. LLC., No. 3:20-cv-0036, ECF
No. 176 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 24, 2021).
[21] Lee v. Global Tel*Link Corp., 2:15-cv-02495, 2018 WL 11008970
(C.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2018) (Wright, J.).
[22] See, e.g., Kelly v. Verizon Pa. LLC , 2017 WL 11549625 (E.D.
Pa. Aug. 8, 2017) (Goldberg, J.) (requiring the party seeking
records protected by a state statute, to bear the "full cost" of a
third-party administrator necessary to provide notice to the
impacted customers). [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 ***