/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220907.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, September 7, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 173
Headlines
573 LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jones Suit Alleges
AMAZON WEB: Scheduling Order on Class Cert. Entered in Dorian
AMERICAN FAMILY: Preliminary Pretrial Order Entered in Drummond
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: E.D. Pa. Dismisses Antitrust Suit
APPLE INC: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Smartwatches' Swimproof Claims
ARCONIC CORP: Faces Securities Suit Over Misleading Statements
AVANTERA HEALTH: Raslavich Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
B. ERECTORS: Huato Files Suit Over Welders' Unpaid Overtime
CELSIUS NETWORK: Suit Says $22.5-M Crypto Stored in Custody Service
CHECKPEOPLE LLC: Loses Bid to Junk Gaul Class Suit
COINBASE GLOBAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 3
COMPASS HEALTH: Isidore Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages & Overtime
CRESCENT HOTELS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bouzerki Alleges
CYCLEBAR FRANCHISING: Kuhn Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
EATSTREET INC: Renewed Stipulation to Certify Rule 23 Class Filed
EDWARD JONES: Underpays Female Advisors, Class-Action Suit Says
ENVOLVE CLIENT: Alvarado Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Scheduling Order Entered in Corinna Suit
EXECUPHARM INC: Employee Data Breach Class Action to Move Forward
EXELON CORP: Court Dismisses Consumers' Suit Following Mediation
FRANKLOVE HOME: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Sullivan Suit Alleges
GANNETT CO: Anderson Files Suit Over Illegal Autorenewal Fees
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Suit Over Defective Security System Units
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Goldstein Suit
HARVEST ROANOKE: Faces Jones Suit Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
INNOVATE CORP: Faces Security Suit for Breaching Fiduciary Duties
JAMES LEBLANC: Seeks to Exclude Certain Evidence in Humphrey's Suit
JAMES RIVER GROUP: Employees’ Fund Files Suit Over Policy Reserves
KIRKLAND'S STORES: Fails to Timely Pay Manual Workers, Sicard Says
KOHL'S CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due November 1
LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES: McDonough Loses Class Status Bid
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Ct. Junks Tutor's Bid for Class Certification
LL FLOOR DESIGNS: Underpays Construction Workers, Melendez Claims
MATERION CORP: Faces Lucyk Suit in Ohio Court
MDL 2873: Brown Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: George Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
MENARD INC: Domer Suit Removed to W.D. Wisconsin
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Face Class Suit Over Electrical, Battery Defects
MINISO GROUP: Ashraf Sues Over Misleading Registration Statements
NEILMED PHARMACEUTICALS: Cooper Loses Bid for Class Certification
NELNET SERVICING: Silver Golub Investigates Privacy Class Suit
NEWPORT CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Suit
OASIS LUXE: Nochimson Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
ONEIDA COUNTY, WI: Underpays Social Workers, Haugen Suit Claims
ORGANIGRAM HOLDINGS: $2.31-M Deal in Cannabis Suit Wins Final OK
PBM NUTIRITIONALS: Agrees $2M Settlement in Baby Formula Class Suit
PCG INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carter Suit Alleges
POMONA VALLEY: Fails to Properly, Timely Pay Wages, Guevara Says
PREMIUM CHOICE: Faces Nelson Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
PRINCESS CRUISES: Wins Appeal Over Exclusion of Passengers in Suit
SASOL LTD: Agrees to Pay $24M Settlement in Investors' Class Suit
SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Court Modifies Class Cert. Briefing Sched
SERENA & LILY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Dicks Suit Says
STORM SMART: Conditional Status of Shutter Installer Class Sought
TESLA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Sudden Unintended Braking Defect
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid for Class Certification Due Sept. 13
TEXAS PRIDE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jones Suit Alleges
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: Faces Labor Suit in Kentucky Court
VERVENT INC: Bid for Summary Judgment vs Aliff Partly Denied
WASHINGTON: Ct. Approves $2.15MM Attyorneys' Fees in D.S. Suit
[*] $225,000 Settlement in FCRA Class Suit in Florida Discussed
*********
573 LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jones Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
EBONY JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 573 LLC; 3471 LLC; 3475 LLC; 3485 LLC; 5634
LLC; 577 LLC; PHC ROANOKE LLC; and PEACHTREE RESTAURANT PARTNERS
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-00486-TTC (W.D. Va., Aug. 24,
2022) seeks to recover overtime and minimum wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Jones was employed by the Defendant as staff.
573 LLC operates as an International House of Pancakes in Roanoke,
VA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
Email: zev.antell@butlercurwood.com
- and -
Brittany M. Haddox, Esq.
STRELKA EMPLOYMENT LAW
Warehouse Row
119 Norfolk Avenue, S.W., Suite 330
Roanoke, VA 24011
Email: brittany@strelkalaw.com
AMAZON WEB: Scheduling Order on Class Cert. Entered in Dorian
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACINDA DORIAN v. AMAZON
WEB SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00269-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered a scheduling order regarding class
certification
Event Deadline
-- Deadline to Amend Pleadings February 6, 2023
and Join Other Parties:
-- Completion of Fact Discovery June 9, 2023
(Merits Issues and Class
Certification Issues)
-- Disclosure of Plaintiff's July 7, 2023
Expert(s) and Expert
-- Report(s) regarding Class August 11, 2023
Certification Disclosure of
Defendant's Expert(s) and
Expert Report(s) regarding
Class Certification:
-- Completion of Expert Discovery September 29, 2023
regarding Class Certification:
-- Plaintiff's Deadline to Move October 27, 2023
for Class Certification:
-- The Defendant's Deadline to November 27, 2023
Respond to Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Plaintiff's Deadline to Reply December 18, 2023
in support of Class
Certification:
Amazon Web Services is a subsidiary of Amazon that provides
on-demand cloud computing platforms and APIs to individuals,
companies, and governments, on a metered pay-as-you-go basis. These
cloud computing web services provide distributed computing
processing capacity and software tools via AWS server farms.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AAXRCb at no extra charge.[CC]
AMERICAN FAMILY: Preliminary Pretrial Order Entered in Drummond
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT L. DRUMMOND and JAN
A. CARLSON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I., Case
No. 3:22-cv-00338-wmc (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Stephen L.
Crocker entered an order:
1. Motion for Preliminary Class September 16, 2022
Certification:
Response: October 14, 2022
Reply: October 21, 2022
2. Amendments to the pleadings: October 31, 2022
3. Disclosure of all experts: To be determined by the
parties
4. Motion & Brief To Decertify March 31, 2023
Class:
5. Deadline for filing dispositive November 17, 2023
motions:
6. Discovery Cutoff: March 15, 2024
7. Settlement Letters: March 15, 2024
8. Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and March 22, 2024
all motions in limine:
Objections: April 5, 2024
9. First Final Pretrial April 16, 2024
Conference:
Second Final Pretrial April 24, 2024
Conference:
Trial: April 29, 2024
AmFam is an American private mutual company that focuses on
property, casualty, and auto insurance, and also offers commercial
insurance, life, health, and homeowners coverage as well as
investment and retirement-planning products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ecuxKV at no extra charge.[CC]
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: E.D. Pa. Dismisses Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Amerisourcebergen Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that in May 25, 2022,
the court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice a civil
antitrust complaint against multiple generic drug manufacturers,
and also included claims against the Company, H.D. Smith, and other
drug distributors and industry participants filed in December 2019
by Reliable Pharmacy, together with other retail pharmacies and
North Sunflower Medical Center.
The case is filed as a putative class action and plaintiffs purport
to represent a class of drug purchasers including other retail
pharmacies and healthcare providers. The case has been consolidated
for multidistrict litigation proceedings before the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The complaint alleges that the Company and others in the industry
participated in a conspiracy to fix prices, allocate markets and
rig bids regarding generic drugs. In March 2020, the plaintiffs
filed a further amended complaint. On July 15, 2020, the Company
and other industry participants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.
On May 25, 2022, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without
prejudice. On July 1, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, again including claims against the Company, H.D. Smith,
and other drug distributors and industry participants.
Amerisourcebergen Corporation pharmaceutical sourcing and
distribution services companies based in Pennsylvania.
APPLE INC: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Smartwatches' Swimproof Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
classaction.org reports that summer may almost be over, but you
still might want to think twice before wearing your Apple Watch SE
into the pool or ocean.
A new proposed class action case alleges Apple has overstated how
"swimproof" the Apple Watch SE really is.
Although the tech giant advertises the Apple Watch SE as water
resistant up to 50 meters, i.e., good for shallow-water activities,
the standard by which the device's "swimproofness" is tested "is
not intended for smart watches, does not apply to real world use
conditions of smart watches, and is not understood by most
consumers," the 21-page lawsuit says.
Indeed, a support article on Apple's website suggests that the
Apple Watch SE may not be as water resistant as consumers were led
to believe, in particular because the device's crucial seals and
acoustic membranes, which need to be in tip-top shape for the watch
to stay "swimproof," can be damaged over time by soaps, shampoos,
conditioners, lotions, sunscreens, body oils and water itself, the
complaint says.
Ultimately, Apple concedes that the Apple Watch SE's water
resistance is not permanent and may diminish over the life of the
device, a stark one-eighty from how the product is advertised, the
suit relays.
The case, for instance, claims that an Apple Watch SE "suffers
frequent damage" after being dropped into or coming into contact
with water "for a few minutes or even seconds," and the company
"refuses" to repair or replace water-damaged devices under
warranty.
"This means buyers are told one thing when they buy the Product . .
. but something else when they need after-sales service or
replacement," the case, filed on August 25 in California federal
court, claims.
"Water resistant" and "waterproof" are not the same thing, case
says
With the advent of smart watches, consumers have become
"increasingly concerned" about protecting their pricey devices from
water damage, the case explains. In fact, an important
consideration for a consumer shopping for a smart watch - in
addition to battery life and a shatterproof screen - is whether it
can resist water damage, especially given the cost of repairing or
replacing a device that's been damaged or destroyed by liquid, the
suit relays.
It's with this in mind that Apple markets the Apple Watch SE as
having a water resistance rating of "WR50." Per the complaint, the
WR50 rating, under International Organization for Standardization
(IOS) standard 22810:2010, means that the device can withstand
water up to "50 meters/5 atmospheres/5 bars of pressure/165 feet."
Apple makes clear by including the WR50 water resistance rating in
its advertising that the watch is fine to use while swimming or
showering, the filing says.
The case specifies that a product is "water resistant" if it can
"resist the penetration of water to some degree," while one is
"waterproof" if it is "completely impervious to water." The lawsuit
contends that although "water resistant" and "waterproof" are two
different things, the marketing word "swimproof" is understood by
reasonable consumers to mean "waterproof" and that the enclosure of
the Apple Watch SE is thus "completely impervious to water."
Since only a hermetically sealed product can be truly "waterproof,"
however, the ISO 22810:2010 standard has replaced the term with
"water resistant" to "avoid disputes and ambiguities for watches,"
the case says.
Nevertheless, Apple, the complaint alleges, "takes advantage of
reasonable consumers' inability to distinguish between the two
terms" by wielding "water-resistant" amid "a backdrop of visuals
and statements that imply the Product is waterproof."
Testing. . . testing 1, 2. . .
Crucially, the lawsuit contests, the testing method used to provide
the Apple Watch SE's water resistance rating fails to account for
how the devices are actually used by the public. For instance,
tests performed according to ISO standards are done when the smart
watches are brand new, "a condition that will almost never be met
in the real world" since a user will most certainly "not have their
smart watch subject to potential water damage immediately after
they open it," the suit says. Likewise, in "real-world conditions,"
the case says, an Apple Watch SE will likely not be "immersed in
purified, fresh water."
Over time, the device will come into contact with body oils,
cosmetics, sunscreen and water, all of which contain agents that
gradually corrode and wear out vital parts, seals, coatings, foams
and adhesives, the complaint relays.
Further, the filing says that the Apple Watch SE's water protection
barriers, such as coatings, glues, gaskets, meshes and membranes,
are porous, meaning they only "deter" water from entering the
device. According to the suit, these barriers "degrade and fail,"
especially when the watch encounters different temperatures,
pressures and "mechanical force conditions."
With regard to temperature, the case states that the ISO's general
testing conditions rest between 64.4 and 77 degrees Fahrenheit,
despite the fact that temperatures in pools, sinks and bathtubs -
where the watches might be worn - "typically exceed[] the suggested
temperature range under the ISO standard."
Further still, the ISO standard relied upon by Apple does not
specify whether a sample watch is turned on while tested, even
though this can affect a device's ability to withstand water, the
lawsuit says.
Lastly, the filing contends that the "acceptance criteria" for the
ISO water resistance tests are vague in that they require only that
water entering a device not affect its usual operation or impair
its safety, meaning something may be considered "water resistant"
as long as it does not short circuit.
Who's covered by the Apple Watch SE class action?
The case looks to represent all United States residents who bought
an Apple Watch SE for personal or household use at any time between
August 25, 2018 and the time the lawsuit is resolved.
I own an Apple Watch SE. How do I join the case?
The thing is, you don't need to do anything to "join" or have
yourself "included" in a proposed class action, at least not when
it's initially filed. These types of lawsuits tend to take some
time to work through the legal process, and it's usually only when
and if a suit settles that consumers covered by the case, known as
"class members," would need to act. This usually involves filling
out and filing a claim form online or by mail.
But patience, as they say, is a virtue, and it's important to keep
in mind that these types of lawsuits generally take some time to
work through the legal process, usually toward a settlement,
dismissal or arbitration. [GN]
ARCONIC CORP: Faces Securities Suit Over Misleading Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arconic Corporation (formerly ParentCo) disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2022, that a
consolidated class action complaint was filed against ParentCo and
its former CEO Klaus Kleinfeld alleging that the registration
statement for the Preferred Offering contained false and misleading
statements.
A purported class action complaint related to the Grenfell Tower
fire was filed on August 11, 2017 in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against ParentCo and
Klaus Kleinfeld. A related purported class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania on September 15, 2017, under the caption "Sullivan
v. Arconic Inc. et al.," against ParentCo, three former ParentCo
executives, several current and former ParentCo directors, and
banks that acted as underwriters for ParentCo's September 18, 2014
preferred stock offering (the Preferred Offering).
The plaintiff in Sullivan had previously filed a purported class
action against the same defendants on July 18, 2017 in the Southern
District of New York and, on August 25, 2017, voluntarily dismissed
that action without prejudice. On February 7, 2018, on motion from
certain putative class members, the court consolidated Howard and
Sullivan, closed Sullivan, and appointed lead plaintiffs in the
consolidated case.
On April 9, 2018, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated purported
class action filed a consolidated amended complaint. The
consolidated amended complaint alleged that the registration
statement for the Preferred Offering contained false and misleading
statements and omitted to state material information, including by
allegedly failing to disclose material uncertainties and trends
resulting from sales of Reynobond PE for unsafe uses and by
allegedly expressing a belief that appropriate risk management and
compliance programs had been adopted while concealing the risks
posed by Reynobond PE sales.
The consolidated amended complaint also alleged that between
November 4, 2013 and June 23, 2017 ParentCo and Kleinfeld made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information about ParentCo's commitment to safety, business and
financial prospects, and the risks of the Reynobond PE product,
including in ParentCo's Form 10-Ks for the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, its Form 10-Qs and
quarterly financial press releases from the fourth quarter of 2013
through the first quarter of 2017, its 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016
Annual Reports, its 2016 Annual Highlights Report, and on its
official website.
The consolidated amended complaint sought, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and
expert fees and expenses. On June 8, 2018, all defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a
claim. On June 21, 2019, the Court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss in full, dismissing the consolidated amended complaint
in its entirety without prejudice.
On July 23, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint alleges generally the same
claims as the consolidated amended complaint with certain
additional allegations, as well as claims that the risk factors set
forth in the registration statement for the Preferred Offering were
inadequate and that certain additional statements in the sources
identified above were misleading. The second amended complaint
seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages and an
award of attorney and expert fees and expenses.
On September 11, 2019, all defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. Plaintiffs' opposition to that motion was filed
on November 1, 2019 and all defendants filed a reply brief on
November 26, 2019. On June 22, 2020, counsel for Arconic
Corporation and the individual defendants filed a letter apprising
the Court of a recent decision by the Third Circuit and discussing
its relevance to the pending motion to dismiss.
Pursuant to an Order by the Court directing the plaintiffs to
respond to this letter, the plaintiffs filed a letter response on
July 9, 2020. On June 23, 2021, the Court granted in part and
denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.
The Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' claim against
ParentCo, certain officers and directors and the underwriters based
on the registration statement for the Preferred Offering, with the
exception of one statement and only as to purchases made before
October 23, 2015. In addition, plaintiffs' claim based on
ParentCo's statements in other SEC filings, in product brochures,
and on websites was dismissed in its entirety as to Kleinfeld and
dismissed in part and allowed in part as to ParentCo.
The Court also dismissed the control-person liability claims in
their entirety. On August 11, 2021, ParentCo filed a motion with
the district court for certification of an interlocutory appeal and
a stay pending appeal. The motion seeks to appeal the aspect of the
court's June 23, 2021 opinion concerning the complaint's pleading
of ParentCo's alleged scienter.
Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion on August 17, 2021,
and ParentCo filed a reply brief on August 24, 2021. On August 12,
2021, defendants filed an answer to the second amended complaint. A
status conference was held before the Court on January 11, 2022
during which the Court heard arguments from both parties on the
pending motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal.
On July 29, 2022, the Court denied the motion for certification of
an interlocutory appeal. The parties were ordered to submit a
proposed scheduling order for the case to move forward into
discovery. The motion remains pending before the district court.
Arconic Corporation is a manufacturing company of metals based in
Pennsylvania.
AVANTERA HEALTH: Raslavich Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA RASLAVICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AVANTERA HEALTH, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
155950007 (Fla. Cir., 13th Judicial, August 23, 2022) is a class
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has received a telephonic
sales call to his telephone number that was allegedly from the
Defendant on or after July 1, 2021. Accordingly, the Defendant
engages in telephonic sales calls to consumers in an attempt to
promote its goods and services. However, the Defendant failed to
obtain consumers' prior express written consent to receive such
telephonic sales calls, which involved an automated system for the
selection or dialing of telephone numbers or the playing of
recorded message when a connection is completed, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated individuals were aggrieved and are each
entitled to recover damages, costs, and attorney's fees from the
Defendant, as well as an injunction against future calls and other
relief as the Court deems necessary, the suit added.
Avantera Health, LLC is a consumer goods retailer. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
2110 West Platt Street
Tampa, FL 33606
Tel: (813) 422-7782
Fax: (813) 422-7783
E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com
B. ERECTORS: Huato Files Suit Over Welders' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CARLOS GARCIA HUATO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELFINO ZACARIAS-CHABLE,
individually and d/b/a B. Erectors & Fabricators, Defendant, Case
No. 4:22-cv-02855 (S.D. Tex., August 23, 2022) brings this
complaint as a collective action alleging the Defendant of
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a welder from May
2019 until August 2022.
The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated welders
regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. However, the
Defendant denied them of their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
Instead, the Defendant paid them straight time for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek, says the Plaintiff.
On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated welders, the
Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages at the
applicable rate, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, all
costs and attorney's fees, and other relief as the Court deems just
and equitable.
Delfino Zacarias-Chable d/b/a B. Erectors & Fabricators engages in
interstate commerce, operating on interstate highways. [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
CELSIUS NETWORK: Suit Says $22.5-M Crypto Stored in Custody Service
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Denis Omelchenko at ihodl.com reports that troubled cryptocurrency
lending firm Celsius Network is facing a class action lawsuit from
64 customers over $22.5 million worth of crypto stored in custody
service. Subscribe to our Telegram channel to get daily short
digests about events that shape the crypto world. According to a
lawsuit, filed with the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York, creditors want to get their crypto back,
which was stored in custody, which means that Celsius should have
kept these assets separately from its main capital. As per terms of
use, Celsius had no right to use assets stored in custody for its
purposes. The hearing on the complaint is scheduled on September
1.
Celsius filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy
Code in July this year. The company says the restructuring will
help it "maximize value for all stakeholders." [GN]
CHECKPEOPLE LLC: Loses Bid to Junk Gaul Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERRY GAUL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CHECKPEOPLE, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01313-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Judge James E. Shadid entered an order denying the Defendant's
motion to dismiss in its entirety.
The Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint, asserting
that she has failed to plead a public use of her identity where she
has only alleged that she, not others, viewed her identifying
information. Defendant explains that one would not see Plaintiff's
name or information merely by accessing the site. Rather, an
individual would have to type in Plaintiff's first and last name
before seeing her information. Defendant asserts that this is not a
public use of Plaintiff's identity, and she has only pled a
"self-generated non-public use."
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached the Illinois Right of
Publicity Act (IRPA) when it displayed her name, age, city state of
residence, and known relatives, without her consent. Plaintiff
asserts that displaying this information which was "accessible to
anyone with an Internet connection," was an unconsented public use
of her identity under the IRPA.
The Plaintiff also asserts that this information was used for a
commercial purpose, that Plaintiff’s identity was used to induce
viewers to pay for a monthly subscription service. Plaintiff
asserts the claims on behalf of herself, and a putative class of
other similarly situated individuals residing in Illinois.
The Defendant owns and operates CheckPeople.com, a site accessible
by the public. A visitor to the site may, without charge, obtain
preliminary information on an individual by entering that person's
first and last name into the search engine. The viewer will receive
information related to others with that same name, including age,
residence, and family members.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PZcKEb at no extra charge.[CC]
COINBASE GLOBAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com)
informs investors two securities class action lawsuits have been
filed in both the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey and United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Coinbase Global, Inc. ("Coinbase")
(NASDAQ: COIN). The actions charge Coinbase with violations of the
federal securities laws, including omissions and fraudulent
misrepresentations relating to the company’s business,
operations, and prospects. As a result of Coinbase's materially
misleading statements and omissions to the public, Coinbase
investors have suffered significant losses.
YOU CAN ALSO CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR
BROWSER:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/coinbase-global-inc-2022?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=coinbase&mktm=r
CANNOT VIEW THIS VIDEO? PLEASE CLICK HERE
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: OCTOBER 3, 2022
CLASS PERIOD: APRIL 14, 2021 THROUGH JULY 26, 2022
CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:
Jonathan Naji, Esq. at (484) 270-1453 or via email at
info@ktmc.com
Kessler Topaz is one of the world's foremost advocates in
protecting the public against corporate fraud and other wrongdoing.
Our securities fraud litigators are regularly recognized as leaders
in the field individually and our firm is both feared and respected
among the defense bar and the insurance bar. We are proud to have
recovered billions of dollars for our clients and the classes of
shareholders we represent.
COINBASE'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
The lawsuits against Coinbase allege that the Registration
Statement and other documents filed with the SEC in connection with
the company's public offering in April 2021 made false or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Coinbase
insiders had abruptly increased holdings of Coinbase Class A common
shares and intended to sell Coinbase shares as early as April 14,
2021, the first day of public trading in Coinbase stock. Indeed, on
April 14, 2021, multiple Coinbase insiders sold in excess of seven
million shares of Coinbase Class A common stock, including more
than 1.3 million shares at the market opening that day,
collectively receiving more than $2.7 billion in proceeds from such
sales.
The lawsuits additionally allege that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Coinbase
custodially held crypto assets on behalf of its customers, which
assets Coinbase knew or recklessly disregarded could qualify as the
property of a bankruptcy estate, making those assets potentially
subject to bankruptcy proceedings in which Coinbase's customers
would be treated as the Company's general unsecured creditors; (2)
Coinbase allowed Americans to trade digital assets that Coinbase
knew or recklessly disregarded should have been registered as
securities with the SEC; (3) the foregoing conduct subjected the
Company to a heightened risk of regulatory and governmental
scrutiny and enforcement action.
On May 10, 2022, Coinbase disclosed that: "Because custodially held
crypto assets may be considered to be the property of a bankruptcy
estate, in the event of a bankruptcy, the crypto assets we hold in
custody on behalf of our customers could be subject to bankruptcy
proceedings and such customers could be treated as our general
unsecured creditors." Following this disclosure, the price of
Coinbase Class A common stock fell by more than 26%.
Then, on July 25, 2022, Bloomberg reported that Coinbase is facing
an SEC probe into whether it improperly let Americans trade digital
assets that should have been registered as securities. On this
news, the price of Coinbase Class A common stock fell by an
additional 21%, further damaging investors.
WHAT CAN I DO?
Coinbase investors may, no later than October 3, 2022, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Coinbase investors who have
suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire
more information.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE CASE
WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?
A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. [GN]
COMPASS HEALTH: Isidore Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages & Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, WITCHMONDE ISIDORE, and other similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. COMPASS HEALTH, INC., MEDZDIRECT, INC.; SCOTT SEGAL;
and SEAN SEGAL, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-22679-DPG (S.D. Fla.,
August 24, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged willful and
intentional violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Corporate Defendants from
approximately April 2020 through July 13, 2022 as a customer
service representative, medication sender, in charge of sending
patients' medications to pharmacies who do business with the
Corporate Defendants.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked approximately an
average of 60 to 70 or 80 hours per week while employed by the
Corporate Defendants. The Corporate Defendants properly compensated
the Plaintiff up until February or March 2022. Beginning in on or
about February or March 2022, the Plaintiff was told by the
Corporate Defendants' supervisors to clock out at 9:00 p.m. every
day even though they know that she routinely worked past 9:00 p.m.
Alternatively, the Corporate Defendants clocked the Plaintiff out
at around 9:00 p.m. so that her time records did not show she
worked past 9:00 p.m., says the suit.
As a result of the Corporate Defendants' unlawful employment
policy, the Plaintiff were not paid approximately 20 hours of
overtime. Although she was promised a raise to $21 per hour after
she complained multiple times that she was not being compensated
for hours she worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the Defendants
breached their promise and paid her the same rate of $19 per hour
after the first three months and during the remainder of her
employment, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated employees to recover unpaid wages ad
overtime compensation against the Defendant, as well as liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other
relief as the Court deems equitable and just.
Compass Health, Inc. provides comprehensive services to treat
behavioral health conditions. MedzDirect, Inc. provides pharmacy
services to Compass and the patients, doctors, medical staff, and
pharmacies that work with Compass. The Corporate Defendants share
common management, centralized control of labor relations, and
common offices and interrelated operations. The Individual
Defendants own and operate MedzDirect, Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tanesha Walls Blye, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: (305) 503-5131
Fax: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
CRESCENT HOTELS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bouzerki Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH BOUZEKRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CRESCENT HOTELS & RESORTS LLC d/b/a HYATT
HERALD SQUARE NEW YORK; and MHG 31ST STREET LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-07218 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2022) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Bouzekri was employed by the Defendants as front desk
agent.
CRESCENT HOTELS & RESORTS is headquartered in the United States.
The Company's line of business includes operating public hotels and
motels. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
CYCLEBAR FRANCHISING: Kuhn Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
CLAYTON KUHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CYCLEBAR FRANCHISING, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 156048741 (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir. Ct., August 24, 2022) brings
this complaint as a class action alleging the Defendant of
violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant sent him a telephonic sales
calls to his telephone number on or after July 1, 2021 in an
attempt to promote its goods and services. Allegedly, the
Defendant's telephonic sales calls involved an automated system for
the selection or dialing of telephone numbers or the playing of a
recorded message when a connection is completed. The Defendant,
however, failed to obtain the Plaintiff's prior express written
consent to receive such automated telephonic sales calls, says the
Plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff have caused similar telephonic sales
calls to be sent to individuals in Florida without having secured
their prior express written consent. Like the Plaintiff, those
individuals were aggrieved and suffered damages. Thus, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff
seeks an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all telephonic
sales calls made without express written consent. The Plaintiff
also seeks statutory damages, reasonable attorney's fees and court
costs, and other relief as the Court deems necessary, the suit
asserts.
CycleBar Franchising, LLC is a company that specializes as a
fitness center focusing on indoor cycling. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
2110 West Platt Street
Tampa, FL 33606
Tel: (813) 422-7782
Fax: (813) 422-7783
E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com
EATSTREET INC: Renewed Stipulation to Certify Rule 23 Class Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTOFFER MARTIN et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
EATSTREET, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00279-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the
Parties stipulate to certify a class action under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; that class is defined as:
"All EatStreet delivery drivers who were employed in
Wisconsin between March 26, 2018 and June 19, 2021 who did
not sign an arbitration agreement."
EatStreet is an American online food ordering service that acts as
a centralized marketplace, where diners can order delivery and
takeout from restaurants in their area.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 22, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wMldUj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
Summer Murshid, Esq.
Timothy Maynard, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
5150 N. Port Washington Rd., Suite 243
Milwaukee, WI 53217-5470
Telephone: (414) 271-8650
Facsimile: (414) 207-6079
E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
smurshid@hq-law.com
tmaynard@hq-law.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Benjamin T. Johnson, Esq.
Emi M. Passini, Esq.
Paul E. Benson, Esq.
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP
444 West Lake Street, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 222-0800
Facsimile: (312) 222-0818
E-mail: btjohnson@michaelbest.com
empassini@michaelbest.com
pebenson@michaelbest.com
EDWARD JONES: Underpays Female Advisors, Class-Action Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Waddell at thinkadvisor.com reports that Edward Jones was
accused of systematically underpaying female advisors in an
employment discrimination class-action lawsuit filed.
According to the suit, filed in Illinois Northern District Court,
plaintiff Blair Zigler filed a charge of discrimination with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on or about June 14,
alleging gender discrimination on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated against Edward Jones.
Zigler, a former home office financial advisor, was employed at
Edward Jones from July 2018 to February 2022.
Edward Jones employs more than 19,225 financial advisors and has
14,667 branch offices in the United States, according to the suit.
"But as of 2021 -- nearly 100 years after the company was founded
-- only 21% of Edward Jones FAs are women," the suit states. "These
disproportionate hiring statistics show that Edward Jones is aware
of its tendency to favor male FAs over female FAs."
Edward Jones is not alone in having a mostly male advisor force.
The share of CFPs who are women has been stuck around 23% for
years, according to the Certified Financial Planner Board of
Standards.
The suit states that Edward Jones' "leadership responsible for
compensation policy decisions is predominately white and male."
Edward Jones, the suit states, "is well-aware that women FAs are
significantly underrepresented in senior leadership, recently
acknowledging that only 30% of its senior leadership are women."
The suit goes on to maintain that "due to long-standing systemic,
company-wide discriminatory practices with respect to training,
compensation, partnerships, sales support and business
opportunities, female home office employees are denied wages and
advancement opportunity on the basis of gender."
As a result, the suit continues, female home office FAs at Edward
Jones are paid less than male home office FAs.
"Edward Jones is well-aware of the centralized, systemic,
company-wide discriminatory employment practices to which Plaintiff
Zigler, and the class she seeks to represent, has been and
continues to be subjected -- and has been for many years," the suit
states.
The suit cites Edward Jones' 2021 Purpose, Inclusion, and
Citizenship Report "pay equity analysis," in which the firm
analyzed pay for its U.S. home offices to "assess equal pay for
equal work across race and ethnicity, gender and gender identity,
sexual orientation and military status."
Zigler and the members of the proposed collective and classes, the
suit states, "are among the 2% of home office employees identified
by Edward Jones as not receiving equal pay for equal work,"
according to the suit.
"Despite Edward Jones' claim that these '[i]dentified gaps have
been addressed,' those impacted by Edward Jones' discriminatory
compensation practices know this to be public-facing lip service,
unaccompanied by actual change or meaningful compensation," the
suit maintains.
"Consequently, Edward Jones continues to knowingly and
intentionally foster an inequitable and unlawful workplace that
disproportionately disadvantages female home office employees and
that does not serve any reasonable business purpose," the suit
states.
Edward Jones said in a statement shared with ThinkAdvisor that
while it has not reviewed the suit, the firm "is committed to
creating a place of belonging for our associates and our clients
and making a positive impact in our communities. We condemn any
instance of discrimination or bias. Edward Jones takes its
commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion seriously and will
continue to listen, learn, take responsibility and act in
accordance with its values and purpose to make a positive impact in
the lives of its clients, colleagues and communities."
In 2020, Edward Jones committed to reach these "human capital
aspirations" by the end of 2025:
20% people of color and gender parity among leaders in the firm's
U.S. headquarters
15% people of color and 40% women among U.S. home office general
partners
15% people of color and 30% women among U.S. financial advisors.
[GN]
ENVOLVE CLIENT: Alvarado Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALMA ALVARADO, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ENVOLVE CLIENT SERVICES GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00292 (W.D. Tex., August 23, 2022) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
illegal pay practices that willfully violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a senior accountant
from approximately December 2019 until approximately March 2022.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked close to 60 hours
in a typical workweek as required by the Defendant to work even
through her lunch period and after her scheduled end time on a
regular basis. Although she was typically paid for work performed
between her scheduled start and end times, the Defendant did not
pay her for auditing or other tasks conducted after her scheduled
work times, nor for working through meal periods. Allegedly, the
Defendant only paid overtime compensation to the Plaintiff for some
of the hours she worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the
suit.
Accordingly, the Defendant has employed numerous accountants, who
were paid on an hourly basis like the Plaintiff, performed tasks
for the Defendant similar to those tasks performed by the
Plaintiff, frequently worked through lunch of-the-clock, but
without were not compensated for the time they spent working, the
suit asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest,
and other relief as may be necessary and appropriate.
Envolve Client Services Group, LLC is a real estate and property
management company that offers a variety of client services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Alyssa J. White, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
awhite@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Scheduling Order Entered in Corinna Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sullivan v. Corinna
Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No.
CV-22-061-TUC-JGZ-BGM (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Bruce G. McDonald
entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- All parties are granted until September 1, 2022, to move
to join additional parties or to amend their pleadings.
-- Full and complete initial expert disclosures as required by
Rule 26(a)(2)(A)–(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure shall occur on or before March 23, 2023.
-- Full and complete rebuttal expert disclosures as required
by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)–(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on or before April 27, 2023.
-- Parties shall disclose the names of all fact witnesses to
be used at trial pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule
26(a)(3) on or before May 15, 2023.
-- All discovery, including depositions of parties, witnesses,
and experts, shall be completed by July 1, 2023.
-- The Motion for Class Certification shall be filed on or
before July 13, 2022.
-- Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before August 14,
2023 or 30 days following the resolution of any motion for
class certification.
Equifax provides data solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pXPcoz at no extra charge.[CC]
EXECUPHARM INC: Employee Data Breach Class Action to Move Forward
-----------------------------------------------------------------
news.bloomberglaw.com reports that a former biopharmaceutical
company employee can proceed with a proposed class action against
her employer to recover damages for its failure to protect
employees’ sensitive personal information from a data breach, the
Third Circuit said.
Jennifer Clemens' allegation that she has a substantial risk of
identify theft due to the publication of her stolen personal
information on the dark web was sufficient to give her standing to
sue ExecuPharm Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
[GN]
EXELON CORP: Court Dismisses Consumers' Suit Following Mediation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corp disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2022, that the court granted the dismissal
of plaintiffs' refiled state law claims.
Three putative class action lawsuits against Exelon and its utility
unit ComEd were filed in Illinois state court in the third quarter
of 2020 seeking restitution and compensatory damages on behalf of
ComEd customers. The cases were consolidated into a single action
in October of 2020. In November 2020, CUB filed a motion to
intervene in the cases pursuant to an Illinois statute allowing CUB
to intervene as a party or otherwise participate on behalf of
utility consumers in any proceeding which affects the interest of
utility consumers.
On November 23, 2020, the court allowed CUB's intervention, but
denied CUB's request to stay these cases. Plaintiffs subsequently
filed a consolidated complaint, and ComEd and Exelon filed a motion
to dismiss on jurisdictional and substantive grounds on January 11,
2021. Briefing on that motion was completed on March 2, 2021.
The parties agreed, on March 25, 2021, along with the federal
court, plaintiffs discussed above, to jointly engage in mediation.
The parties participated in a one-day mediation on June 7, 2021 but
no settlement was reached. On December 23, 2021, the state court
granted ComEd and Exelon's motion to dismiss with prejudice. On
December 30, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider that
dismissal and for permission to amend their complaint. The court
denied the plaintiffs' motion on January 21, 2022.
Plaintiffs have appealed the court's ruling dismissing their
complaint to the First District Court of Appeals. On February 15,
2022, Exelon and ComEd moved to dismiss the federal plaintiffs'
refiled state law claims, seeking dismissal on the same legal
grounds asserted in their motion to dismiss the original state
court plaintiffs' complaint.
The court granted dismissal of the refiled state claims on February
16, 2022. The original federal plaintiffs appealed that dismissal
on February 18, 2022. The two state appeals were consolidated on
March 21, 2022. Plaintiffs' opening appellate briefs are currently
due August 5, 2022.
Exelon is a utility services holding company based in Illinois.
FRANKLOVE HOME: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Sullivan Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIAH SULLIVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRANKLOVE HOME HEALTH SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-03228-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 24,
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 Sullivan was employed by the Defendant as home health
employee.
FRANKLOVE HOME HEALTH SERVICES, LLC offers companion care, personal
care, senior care, and short term home care after surgery. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
GANNETT CO: Anderson Files Suit Over Illegal Autorenewal Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLE ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GANNETT CO., INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-05088 (D.N.J., Aug. 17, 2022) arises from the Defendant's
fraudulent and unconscionable autorenewal billing practices against
consumers, including Plaintiff, after they have already cancelled
their newspaper subscriptions in violation of New Jersey's Consumer
Fraud Act and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.
The Plaintiff purchased a Courier News digital subscription from
Defendant for $1.00 for the first 6 months and for $9.99/month upon
renewal. At all relevant times, Defendant's representations and
contractual terms expressly promised that Plaintiff may cancel her
automatic renewal subscription at any point up until her
subscription was set to automatically renew. Despite duly canceling
her subscription before it was set to automatically renew,
Defendant continued to charge Plaintiff a $9.99 subscription fee
after she had cancelled her subscription, the suit asserts.
As a result of Defendant's fraudulent conduct, Plaintiff paid
nearly $10.00 in additional, unauthorized charges for a monthly
subscription that she had already cancelled, the suit alleges.
Gannett Co,. Inc. is a mass media holding company and one of the
largest newspaper publishers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Edelsberg, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
3331 Sunset Avenue
Ocean, NJ 07712
Telephone: (305) 610-5223
E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com
- and -
Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIEL GOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com
jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Suit Over Defective Security System Units
-----------------------------------------------------------------
securityinfowatch.com reports that a disabled veteran from New
Jersey has filed a class action lawsuit against General Electric
Co., alleging "dangerous and serious defects, dangers and
non-conformities" were present in all combination-listed burglar
and fire alarm system control units sold under the brand name
Interlogix.
The units named in the suit were manufactured and sold by GE
Electric Co., United Technologies Corp., UTC Fire & Security
Americas Corp. (doing business as Interlogix) and Carrier Global
Corp.
The plaintiff, Samuel L. Kaplan of Teaneck, N.J., alleges in the
8-count, 144-page lawsuit that there "defects, dangers and
non-comformities" with Interlogix alarm system control units made
and sold by GE from 2002 through 2009 under the GE Security name;
United Technologies Corp. from 2010 through 2015 under the
Interlogix brand name; UTC Security from late 2015 through early
2020 under the Interlogix brand name; and then by Carrier under the
Interlogix brand name after UTC Security was spun off into Carrier
in early 2020.
The lawsuit alleges the companies knew about or were required to
know about the problems for years, and that the issues can lead to
"instantaneous and catastrophic failure of the alarm system's
combination-listed control unit during a fire."
"In this dangerously silent and non-functional state, instead of
the alarm system performing its crucial life safety function by
audibly warning all occupants inside the home of the fire emergency
and the central station, the combination listed control unit
fails."
"Consequently, the alarm system cannot warn families of the
imminent life safety danger within their home, allowing for their
timely escape before the premises become untenable."
The suit, filed Aug. 30 in U.S. District Court in New Jersey,
asserts that the dangers inherent in the control units renders them
non-conforming to the minimum standards required by both UL and
NFPA 72 Standards.
The filing says that before the companies submitted their equipment
to be listed by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL)
such as UL Underwriters Laboratories, they were required to verify
that their equipment was conforming.
The lawsuit said if the data-bus circuit wiring is faulted and/or
shorted anywhere it is installed throughout the home by fire, such
as in the common areas, in the wall, attic or basement, "the
non-conforming control unit is instantly rendered non-functional."
"In gross contrast, if the combination-listed control unit was
conforming, fire attacking the single data-bus circuit of the
combination listed control unit or any equipment that is required
to connect to the single data-bus of the combination listed control
unit will not cause the system to be rendered non-functional, since
conforming to both UL and NFPA 72 Standards specifically prohibits
this loss of functionality from happening."
The suit alleges the companies being sued "concealed these serious
defects, dangers and non-conformities from consumers and/or failed
to disclose the alarm system defects to plaintiff and the class,
while at the same time affirmatively representing the high quality
and safety of their control unit systems meeting both UL and NFPA
Standards."
The companies are also accused of failing to remove the systems
from the marketplace or to take remedial action, "even though
defendants were aware that the single data-bus circuit of their
combination listed control units was non-compliant to UL and NFPA
regulations."
The suit goes on to say the companies marketed and sold their
combination-listed control units while still knowing they were
"defective and dangerous."
Kaplan and his attorney are asking a federal judge to certify a
proposed nationwide class and New Jersey subclass in relation to
the lawsuit. [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Goldstein Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATT GOLDSTEIN, et al.,
individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-01778-RSH-AHG
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison H. Goddard entered an order
amending the Scheduling Order as follows:
1. Fact and class discovery are March 2, 2023
not bifurcated, but class
discovery must be completed
by:
2. The Plaintiffs must file a April 3, 2023
motion for class certification
by:
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pPRc23 at no extra charge.[CC]
HARVEST ROANOKE: Faces Jones Suit Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, EBONY JONES, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARVEST ROANOKE LLC, HARVEST
DANVILLE, LLC, HARVEST GORDONSVILLE, LLC, HARVEST LYNCHBURG, LLC,
HARVEST ZC ASSETS LLC, and HARVEST RESTAURANTS LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 7:22-cv-00485-TTC (W.D. Va., August 24, 2022) arises from
the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a server, one of the
tipped employees at the Defendants' IHOP location at 4764 Valley
View Blvd. NW, Roanoke, Virginia 24012, from approximately 2013
until November 2020.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have imposed a tip
credit upon the Plaintiff and other similarly situated tipped
employees for all hours worked rather than paying them the
applicable minimum wage. As a result, the Plaintiff and other
tipped employees were compensated at a rate less than the
applicable minimum wage for at least some hours, says the suit.
In addition, the Defendants have failed to pay the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated tipped employees the proper wages for time
spent performing duties unrelated and incidental to their tipped
occupation. The Defendants required them to perform non-tipped
work, but were still paid at the sub-minimum wage tip credit rate.
Moreover, the Defendant did not pay those who worked more than 40
hours per week at the applicable overtime compensation, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated tipped employees have
suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable damages from the
unlawful policies and practices implemented by the Defendants.
Thus, the Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action,
for herself and all other similarly situated tipped employees, to
recover unpaid minimum wages at the applicable minimum wage rate
against the Defendant, as well as unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees, and
other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
The Corporate Defendants are restaurant franchises for the IHOP
brand with common ownership and operations that operate locations
in the Roanoke, Danville, Gordonsville, and Lynchburg, Virginia
areas. The IHOP brand is a ubiquitous breakfast restaurant with
locations throughout the U.S. and several other countries. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia St., Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Tel: (804) 648-4848
Fax: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: zev.antell@butlercurwood.com
- and –
Brittany M. Haddox, Esq.
STRELKA EMPLOYMENT LAW
Warehouse Row
119 Norfolk Ave., S.W., Suite 330
Roanoke, VA 24011
E-mail: brittany@strelkalaw.com
INNOVATE CORP: Faces Security Suit for Breaching Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Innovate Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2022, that a class action complaint was
filed against the company alleging that the company breached their
fiduciary duties by approving certain transactions that allegedly
provide disproportionate benefits to the company.
On October 1, 2020, Fair Value Investments Incorporated (FVI) filed
a putative stockholder class action and derivative complaint in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against INNOVATE Corp. and certain of
DBMG's current and former officers and directors, including current
and former INNOVATE officers and directors AJ Stahl, Kenneth S.
Courtis, Robert V. Leffler, Jr., Philip A. Falcone, Michael J.
Sena, and Paul Voigt styled "Fair Value Investments Incorporated v.
Roach, et al.," C.A. No. 2020-0847-JTL (Del. Ch.).
FVI alleges that the company, in its capacity as DBMG's controlling
stockholder, and DBMG's current and former officers and directors
breached their fiduciary duties to its subsidiary DBM Global and
its minority stockholders by approving certain transactions that
allegedly provide disproportionate benefits to the company. FVI
challenges DBMG's payments to the company from 2016–present
pursuant to a Tax Sharing Agreement between DBMG and the Company,
DBMG acting as a guarantor or providing collateral for loans taken
on by the company, DBMG's issuance of dividends to its common and
preferred stockholders in 2017–2020, DBMG's issuance of preferred
stock to the company to finance DBMG's 2018 acquisition of GrayWolf
Industrial and its appointment of directors to DBMG's board of
directors by written consent in lieu of holding an annual
stockholder meeting.
On February 23, 2021, FVI filed an Amended Verified Stockholder
Class Action Complaint where FVI named two additional defendants:
the its Chief Executive Officer, Wayne Barr, and DBMG's General
Counsel, Scott D. Sherman. It includes additional fact allegations
in support of the largely similar claims raised in the original
complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
April 23, 2021.
The Court heard argument on the motions to dismiss on January 21,
2022. Ruling from the bench, the Court granted Defendants' motions
to dismiss, in part. The Court dismissed all claims against all
individual defendants other than Ronald Yagoda, including all
claims against Messrs. Barr, Stahl, Courtis, Leffler, Falcone,
Sena, and Voigt.
As to the two remaining defendants, INNOVATE Corp. and Yagoda, the
court dismissed all claims regarding DBMG acting as a guarantor or
providing collateral for loans by the company, DBMG's issuance of
dividends to its common and preferred stockholders in 2017–2020,
the company's appointment of directors to DBMG's board of directors
by written consent in lieu of holding an annual stockholder
meeting; and DBMG's payments to the company in 2016 and May 2017
pursuant to a Tax Sharing Agreement between DBMG and the Company.
The company believes the surviving claims in the FVI Amended
Complaint relating to DBMG's payments to the company after May 2017
pursuant to a Tax Sharing Agreement between DBMG and the company
and DBMG's issuance of preferred stock to the Company to finance
DBMG's 2018 acquisition of GrayWolf Industrial are without merit.
Discovery on the two remaining claims is underway and, if
necessary, trial in this action is expected to occur in the second
half of 2023.
INNOVATE Corp. is a holding company that has subsidiaries in a
variety of operating segmentss based in New York.
JAMES LEBLANC: Seeks to Exclude Certain Evidence in Humphrey's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HUMPHREY, on behalf
of himself and all similarly situated individuals, v. JAMES
LEBLANC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00233-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order striking or excluding certain
documents offered as evidence by the Plaintiffs in support of their
Motion for Class Certification as they are not admissible or
relevant the issues before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 22, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pYXWuE at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Blanchfield, T.A., Esq.
Christopher K. Jones, Esq.
Chelsea A. Payne, Esq.
KEOGH, COX & WILSON, LTD.
701 Main Street (70802)
Post Office Box 1151
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
Telephone: (225) 383-3796
Facsimile: (225) 343-9612
E-mail: ablanchfield@keoghcox.com
cjones@keoghcox.com
cpayne@keoghcox.com
JAMES RIVER GROUP: Employees’ Fund Files Suit Over Policy Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------------
James River Group Holdings, Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2022, that a
consolidated class action complaint was filed by the plaintiffs
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On July 9, 2021 a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia by Employees'
Retirement Fund of the City of Fort Worth against James River Group
Holdings, Ltd. and certain of its present and former officers.
On September 22, 2021, the Court entered an order appointing
Employees' Retirement Fund of the City of Fort Worth and the City
of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees' Retirement
Trust as co-lead plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint was filed on November
19, 2021 (the Amended Complaint), which asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on
behalf of a putative class of persons and entities that purchased
the Company's stock between February 22, 2019 and October 25, 2021.
The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to make
appropriate disclosures concerning the adequacy of reserves for
policies that covered Rasier LLC, a subsidiary of Uber
Technologies, Inc., and seeks unspecified damages, costs,
attorneys' fees and such other relief as the court may deem proper.
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 18, 2022.
Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to dismiss was filed on March
4, 2022, and the Defendants' reply to the Plaintiff's opposition
was filed on April 4, 2022. On July 13, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a
notice with the Court stating that they intend to seek leave to
file an amended complaint no later than August 25, 2022.
James River Group Holdings, Ltd. is an exempted holding company
registered in Bermuda.
KIRKLAND'S STORES: Fails to Timely Pay Manual Workers, Sicard Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM SICARD, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KIRKLAND'S STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
7:22-cv-07180 (S.D.N.Y., August 23, 2022) brings this complaint as
a class action against the Defendant to recover damages for
delinquent wage payments to manual workers pursuant to New York
Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a manual worker from
approximately July 2015 until November 2017 at the Defendant's 3801
Union Road, Cheektowaga location.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant of willful violation of NYLL by
failing to compensate him and other similarly situated manual
workers on a timely basis. Instead of paying them on a weekly
basis, the Defendant paid them on a bi-weekly basis, the Plaintiff
asserts.
On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated manual
workers, the Plaintiff seeks relief against the Defendant in an
amount to be determined at trial, plus liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the Court
may deem appropriate.
Kirkland's Stores, Inc. operates as a home furnishing store. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Tel: (516) 873-9550
KOHL'S CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due November 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of Kohl's
Corporation ("Kohl's" or the "Company") (NYSE: KSS). The class
action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise,
acquired Kohl's securities between October 20, 2020 and May 19,
2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors are
hereby notified that they have until November 1, 2022 to move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action.
What actions may I take at this time? If you suffered a loss and
are interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff,
please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone
at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.
To join this action, you can click or copy and paste the link below
in a browser:
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/kohls-kss-class-action
There is no cost or obligation to you.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Kohl's Strategic Plan was not
well tailored to achieving the Company's stated goals; (ii) the
Defendants had likewise overstated the Company's success in
executing its Strategic Plan; (iii) Kohl's had deficient disclosure
controls and procedures, internal control over financial reporting,
and corporate governance mechanisms; (iv) as a result, the
Company's Board was able to and did withhold material information
from shareholders about the state of Kohl's in the lead-up to the
Company's annual meeting; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was
likely to have a material negative impact on Kohl's financial
condition and reputation; and (vi) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Kohl's class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the Kohl's class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. For more information regarding the lead
plaintiff process please refer to
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/lead-plaintiff-deadlines. [GN]
LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES: McDonough Loses Class Status Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL P. MCDONOUGH v.
LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, TRINITY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case
No. 2:21-cv-00375-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Court entered an order
denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
Leopold & Associates is a law firm specializing in commercial and
residential mortgage foreclosure, evictions, bankruptcy, and
litigations.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3R2v7sZ at no extra charge.[CC]
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Ct. Junks Tutor's Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TUTOR v. LINCOLN NATIONAL
CORP., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-04150-GJP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Gerald J. Pappert entered an order:
1. granting the Defendants' motion to exclude with respect to
Zail's opinions and denying with respect to Mills'
opinions; and
2. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
Lincoln National operates insurance and investment management
businesses through subsidiary companies.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AwVFeR at no extra charge.[CC]
LL FLOOR DESIGNS: Underpays Construction Workers, Melendez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDDY MELENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LL FLOOR DESIGNS, INC., and LESTER LOCKWOOD,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-07169 (S.D.N.Y., August 23, 2022)
brings this complaint seeking for equitable and legal relief
against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a construction
worker from in or around April 2018 until on or around April 11,
2022.
The Plaintiff claims that he regularly worked an average of
approximately 60 hours per week throughout his employment with the
Defendants. However, instead of paying him an overtime compensation
at the applicable overtime rate, the Defendants paid him at a fixed
hourly rate for all hours he has worked, including those over 40
per week, says the Plaintiff.
LL Floor Designs, Inc. provides hardwood flooring design, flooring
installation, and floor polishing services to commercial locations
throughout New York and New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eliseo Cabrera, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
370 Lexington Ave., Suite 1512
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 460-0047
E-mail: edcabrera@katzmelinger.com
MATERION CORP: Faces Lucyk Suit in Ohio Court
---------------------------------------------
Materion Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended July 1, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that a class action lawsuit
was filed against the company alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Ohio law.
On October 14, 2020, case captioned "Garett Lucyk, et al. v.
Materion Brush Inc., et. al.," Case No. 20CV0234, a wage and hour
purported collective and class action, was filed in the Northern
District of Ohio against the Company and its subsidiary, Materion
Brush Inc.
Plaintiff, a former hourly production employee at the company's
Elmore, Ohio facility, alleges, among other things, that he and
other similarly situated employees nationwide are not paid for all
time they spend donning and doffing personal protective equipment
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio law.
Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification, which the
Company opposed. The motion has been fully briefed, and the parties
are awaiting a decision from the court.
Materion Corporation producer of high-performance advanced
engineered materials based in Ohio.
MDL 2873: Brown Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS
---------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD BROWN and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY fka
MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC.;
KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS,
LP; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100,
INCLUSIVE; Case No. 2:22-cv-02759-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 17, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict
liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violations of the
Uniform Voidable Transactions Act.
This suit deals with Aqueous Film Forming Foams ("AFFF") that were
designed, manufactured and sold as firefighting compounds. AFFF
compounding includes Perfluoro octane Sulfonate (commonly known as
"PFOS"), PerfluorooctanoicAcid (commonly known as "PFOA"), and/or
other Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (together, with PFOS and
PFOA, commonly known as "PFAS") which are manmade organofluorine
compounds (in this case commonly referred to as fluorinated
surfactants/fluorocarbon surfactants). The compounds are designed
to lower the surface tension of water so as to create a
firefighting foam to quell/smother (cutting off oxygen), for
example, jet fuel fires.
The Plaintiff joined the U.S. Army and was subsequently assigned to
Chanute Air Force Base in Illinois from 1981 until 1985. At all
times relevant, Plaintiff lived/worked on Base at Chanute Air Force
Base using and drinking the water. On information and belief,
Chanute AFB has an elevated PFAS environmental contamination level.
In or about 1996, Brown was diagnosed with testicular cancer and
commenced on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical
intervention via orchiectomy. As known by Defendants, testicular
cancer is a disease linked to PFAS contamination. The Plaintiff did
not discover that PFAS was a cause of the harm until approximately
late summer 2020, when he saw Internet information, says the suit.
The Brown case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
VETERAN LEGAL GROUP
700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (888) 215-7834
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and -
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and -
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: George Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN GEORGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE MEN'S WEARHOUSE, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 156041219 (Fla. Cir., 13th Judicial, August 24, 2022) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent telephonic sales
calls to the Plaintiff's telephone number on or after July 1, 2021
in an attempt to promote its goods and services. Upon information
and belief, the Defendant have also caused telephonic sales calls
to be sent to telephone numbers belong to thousands of consumers in
Florida without obtaining their prior express written consent as
required by the FTSA. In addition, the Defendant's telephonic sales
calls allegedly involved an automated system for the selection or
dialing of telephone numbers or the playing of a recorded message
when a connection is completed, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited telephonic sales calls,
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were
allegedly harmed. Thus, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction
requiring the Defendant to cease all telephonic sales calls made
without express written consent. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages, reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, and other
relief as the Court deems necessary.
The Men's Wearhouse, LLC retails apparel. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
2110 West Platt Street
Tampa, FL 33606
Tel: (813) 422-7782
Fax: (813) 422-7783
E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com
MENARD INC: Domer Suit Removed to W.D. Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------
The case styled PILAR DOMER individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MENARD, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 22-cv-000345, was removed from the Wisconsin Circuit Court
of Eau Claire County to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin on Aug. 17, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Wisconsin assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00444-JDP to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of not only herself but
also a putative class of "[a]ll persons who . . . made an online
purchase for pickup at a Menards store and were charged a $1.40 per
item add-on fee." The Plaintiff has asserted four claims against
Menards: (i) violation of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act;
(ii) violation of Wis. Stat. Section 100.18; (iii) breach of
contract; and (iv) unjust enrichment.
Menards is an American home improvement retail company
headquartered in Eau Claire, Wisconsin.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Joshua N. Turner, Esq.
Hannah M. Leiendecker, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
90 S. Seventh Street, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 766-7000
Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
E-mail: Josh.Turner@faegredrinker.com
Hannah.Leiendecker@faegredrinker.com
- and -
Michael P. Daly, Esq.
Mark D. Taticchi, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
One Logan Square, Suite 2000
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 988-2700
Facsimile: (215) 988-2757
E-mail: Michael.Daly@faegredrinker.com
Mark.Taticchi@faegredrinker.com
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Face Class Suit Over Electrical, Battery Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------------
legalscoops.com reports that consumers who have purchased or leased
the model year 2021 or older 450 GLE SUV, manufactured or
distributed by Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC with a 48-volt battery
system, need to pay close attention to their rights.
A class action lawsuit alleges that the model year 2021 and older
450 GLE SUVs equipped with 48-volt batteries suffer from problems
with their electrical systems. The plaintiff claims that in
addition to repeated failures to start even after a few hours and
without any lights or electronics on, these vehicles may also stall
while in motion and suffers problems with the dashboard display
losing power as it reboots and restarts ("Electrical and Battery
Defects").
The class action lawsuit further alleges that Mercedes knew about
these Electrical and Battery Defects but has failed to address
them, forcing owners to pay for diagnostics, software updates, and
even battery replacements and leaving them without their vehicles
for days or weeks.
Current or former owners or lessees of these vehicles who reside in
California should know that California lemon law and federal law
may force Mercedes to either "buy the vehicle back" or provide
substantial compensation for those experiencing these defects.
Under California's lemon law, qualifying "lemons" must be
repurchased, and that can mean a large cash refund and payoff of
your loan or lease. Depending on the situation, this refund could
be as much as everything you paid for the vehicle and everything
you owe: monthly payments, down payments, tax, finance charges,
license, registration, etc.
You could even qualify for two times your money back. What Mercedes
would have to buy it for has nothing to do with how much the
vehicle is currently worth. There is a formula in the law that
starts with you getting all your money back and then taking certain
deductions and exclusions. Those refunds and exclusions are
challenging to understand and can be fought against by
knowledgeable consumer attorneys. Watch the mail, watch your email,
and contact a consumer lawyer for advice as to your options.
Status of the Mercedes GLE 450 Class Action
This lawsuit was initially filed as a nationwide class action
lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey in May
2021. It was later removed to the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey (Gerald Scattaglia, Jr., v.
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-12750-BRM-JRA). In
the proposed Third Amended Complaint, the plaintiff seeks relief
only for New Jersey residents for the model year 2021 and older 450
GLE SUVs equipped with 48-volt batteries.
On January 14, 2022, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
and later a motion to file a proposed Third Amended Complaint. The
motion to file the Third Amended Complaint and Motions to Dismiss
the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint (which may not be
ruled on if the court permits filing the Third Amended Complaint)
has been referred to Magistrate Judge Jose R. Almonte and are
pending.
The court has set no pretrial or trial dates. The court has not yet
certified the case to proceed as a class action.
Your options as a Mercedes 450 GLE owner
mercedes GLE 450 engine photoIn a class action lawsuit, if the
class is certified by the court, the lawyers who bring the class
action represent you. If you are a New Jersey resident and the
class is certified, you will receive notice that the court approves
the case to proceed as a class action and of your right to opt out
of the class by a specific deadline. If they prevail at trial, you
receive whatever relief the judge or jury awards. But if they lose,
you may not litigate claims over the issues raised in the case.
As with most litigation, the vast majority of class action cases
settle. If the case settles and the court preliminarily approves
the settlement, you will receive a class notice describing your
options. Those options will be: (a) do nothing, in which case you
may get nothing but be bound by the settlement, (b) submit a claim
form if requested and get whatever relief is made available, and
the settlement also binds you, or (c) opt-out and pursue your own
claims, in which case you are not bound by the settlement but
cannot participate in the relief being offered to class members.
For many people, a class action settlement may provide significant
benefits and requires little effort to participate. It also comes
with no risk, as the claims have been resolved.
But for others, particularly where they may have had significant
damages, opting out and pursuing individual claims may provide them
an opportunity to receive a better recovery in a shorter period,
but with no guarantee that they will get anything in a settlement.
With vehicles, what to do can be a complicated decision, as it can
depend on many factors.
These factors include:
How old is your car?
Have the defects occurred in your car?
Have you taken it in for repairs on more than one occasion?
Do you still own the car?
Is the vehicle still under warranty?
Where do you live?
Are you willing to consider the opportunity of getting a more
significant recovery as compared to taking what is offered in a
settlement?[GN]
MINISO GROUP: Ashraf Sues Over Misleading Registration Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADEEL ASHRAF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MINISO GROUP HOLDING LIMITED, GUOFE YE,
SAIYIN ZHANG, MINXIN LI, DONALD J. PUGLISI, GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA)
L.L.C., BOFA SECURITIES, INC., and PUGLISI & ASSOCIATES,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-05815 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 17, 2022) is a
class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded MINISO securities
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related
prospectus issued in connection with MINISO's October 2020 initial
public offering, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
On October 15, 2020, Defendants held the IPO, issuing approximately
30,400,000 American Depositary Shares to the investing public at
$20.00 per ADS, pursuant to the Registration Statement. However,
the Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a
result, contained untrue statements of material facts or omitted to
state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading, and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and
regulations governing its preparation, says the suit.
Allegedly, the risk disclosures in the Registration Statement
themselves were materially misleading because they failed to truly
disclose the Company's risks, failed to describe the Company's true
business model, and failed to describe the Company's planned
actions with regards to its funds and its imminent lowering of its
franchise fees, the suit asserts.
Additionally, due to the materially deficient Registration
Statement, Defendants have also violated their independent,
affirmative duty to provide adequate disclosures about adverse
conditions, risk and uncertainties, alleges the suit. As a result
of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the decline in the
market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class
members have suffered significant losses and damages.
MINISO purports to be a fast-growing global value retailer which
serves consumers primarily through its large network of MINISO
stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
NEILMED PHARMACEUTICALS: Cooper Loses Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUTH ANN COOPER, D.P.M.,
on of herself and all others similarly situated, v. NEILMED
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-00945-DRC (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Douglas R. Cole entered an order denying Dr. Cooper's
motion for class certification.
The Court finds that Dr. Cooper has failed to show predominance,
and thus the Court denies her motion for class certification.
Dr. Cooper contends that NeilMed violated the Junk Fax Prevention
Act of 2005 when it sent a fax offering product samples to over
50,000 recipients, including her. Seeking to vindicate her own
rights, as well as the rights of all others who received the same
fax.
NeilMed manufactures large volume saline nasal wash products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cv0q0I at no extra charge.[CC]
NELNET SERVICING: Silver Golub Investigates Privacy Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Silver Golub & Teitell LLP (SGT) -- a plaintiffs' law firm
headquartered in Connecticut -- is investigating claims against
Nelnet Servicing, LLC (Nelnet) in connection with the theft of the
social security numbers other sensitive personal information of
over 2.5 million individuals whose loans Nelnet services.
Nelnet is a Nebraska-based student loan servicing company that
serves as a student loan servicer and web portal provider for
EdFinancial and the Oklahoma Student Loan Authority (OSLA). On
August 26, 2022, EdFinancial and OSLA began notifying over 2.5
million of their customers that that their sensitive personal
information -- including social security numbers, full names,
physical addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers -- had been
exposed as a result of unauthorized access to Nelnet's computer
systems. According to a letter filed with the Maine Attorney
General, Nelnet "discovered a vulnerability [Nelnet] believes led
to . . .certain student loan account registration information
[being] accessible by an unknown party beginning in June 2022 and
ending on July 22, 2022."
SGT believes victims of the Nelnet data breach may have claims
against Nelnet as they likely face increased odds of identity theft
or other identity fraud-type crimes. If you received notice from
Nelnet that your information has been exposed and wish to learn
more about your rights, visit SGT's contact SGT Partner Ian W.
Sloss at isloss@sgtlaw.com at (203) 325-4491. [GN]
NEWPORT CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------
MKS Instruments, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that the class action
lawsuit against its subsidiary Newport Corp. was dismissed after
the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and
denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
On March 25, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit captioned "Dixon
Chung v. Newport Corp., et al.," was filed in the District Court,
Clark County, Nevada on behalf of a putative class of stockholders
of Newport for claims related to the merger agreement between the
company, Newport, and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the company
(Merger Sub).
The lawsuits named as defendants the company, Newport, Merger Sub,
and certain then current and former members of Newport's board of
directors. The lawsuits alleged that Newport's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders in connection with
the sale of Newport, which led to inadequate and unfair
consideration, by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices and by
omitting material information from the proxy statement.
The complainants also alleged that the Company, Newport and Merger
Sub aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches of their
fiduciary duties and sought monetary damages, including pre- and
post-judgment interest.
The District Court consolidated the actions, and plaintiffs filed
first amended complaint on October 24, 2016 and a second amended
complaint on July 12, 2017, each of which were captioned In re
Newport Corporation Shareholder Litigation, and made substantially
similar allegations and sought monetary damages, including pre- and
post-judgment interest. The District Court denied plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a third amended complaint on October 10,
2019 and thereafter entered summary judgment for the defendants on
January 23, 2020.
On March 30, 2022, the Nevada Supreme Court entered an order
affirming in their entirety the District Court's orders granting
defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
MKS Instruments, Inc. provider of instruments, systems, subsystems
and process control solutions based in Massachusetts.
OASIS LUXE: Nochimson Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA NOCHIMSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. OASIS LUXE
MANAGEMENT & CO. INC., and MICHAEL G. MEMON, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-07197 (S.D.N.Y., August 23, 2022) brings this complaint
against the Defendant for its alleged willful and intentional
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff was employed as a fragrance salesperson at the
Defendants' business known as "Oasis Luxe Management" from on or
around January 2019 through and including February 2020.
The Plaintiff claims that he has worked for the Defendants for a
total period of approximately 38.25 hours during each of the weeks
throughout his employment with the Defendants. He was paid $28 per
hour from approximately January 2019 through and including December
2019. However, from approximately January 2020 through and
including February 2020, the Defendants did not pay him any wages.
The Plaintiff also claims that he was never granted with meal
breaks or rest periods of any length. The Defendants also did not
require him to keep track of his time, nor did the Defendants
utilize any time tracking device that accurately reflected his
actual hours worked. In addition, the Defendants did not provide
him with wage statement, and with any notice of his rate of pay,
employer's regular pay day and such other information as required
by NYLL, added the Plaintiff.
Oasis Luxe Management & Co. Inc. is a Boutique Luxe Management Firm
specializing in representing Domestic and International Brands.
Michael G. Memon is the owner of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
LEVIN-PSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 792-0048
E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com
ONEIDA COUNTY, WI: Underpays Social Workers, Haugen Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KIMBERLY HAUGEN, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONEIDA COUNTY, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-00460 (W.D. Wis., August 24, 2022) is brought by the
Plaintiff as a collective action against the Defendant for its
alleged illegal pay policy in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a social worker
during the three years preceding this complaint.
The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the
Defendant, she and other similarly situated social workers were
permitted by the Defendant to work over 40 hours in a single
workweek. But instead of paying them overtime compensation at the
applicable overtime rate, the Defendant paid them at their regular
hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in a single workweek,
says the Plaintiff.
On behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated
social workers, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid back wages at
the applicable overtime rates, all liquidated damages and
penalties, all litigation costs and attorneys' fees incurred, and
other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
Oneida County is a public agency. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. Zoeller, Esq.
Natalie L. Gerloff, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
409 East Main Street
Post Office Box 2155
Madison, WI 53701-2155
Tel: (608) 257-0040
Fax: (608) 256-0236
E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com
ngerloff@hq-law.com
ORGANIGRAM HOLDINGS: $2.31-M Deal in Cannabis Suit Wins Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has approved a $2.31 million
settlement in a class action lawsuit against Organigram Holdings
Inc. over tainted cannabis.
Kate Boyle, the partner with Wagners Law Firm who argued the case
before the court, said the settlement is, in essence, a refund of
the amount of money spent on the affected product.
"That is kind of the nature of the consumer claim – what are the
economic damages arising from the breach of contract and the fact
that, basically, class members didn't get the product they
bargained for," Boyle said.
The settlement will cover a large portion of the refunds for the
3,544 members involved in the class action lawsuit against
Organigram, minus any funds they've already received.
In 2016 and 2017, trace amounts of pesticides bifenazate,
myclobutanil, and malathion – substances that aren't authorized
for use on cannabis plants – were found in some of Organigram's
medical cannabis products.
Organigram voluntarily recalled 74 batches but the class action
concerns consumers who bought the tainted cannabis before the
company recalled it.
Boyle said Wagners was unable to advance claims of adverse health
consequences against class members.
"We attempted to certify the adverse health consequences claims as
our representative plaintiff and a number of other class members
had complained of a myriad of symptoms they suffered after
consuming marijuana that had myclobutanil and bifenazate," Boyle
said.
Wagners initiated the lawsuit following an initial statement of
claim filed March 3, 2017.
In the lawsuit, class members alleged that they didn't receive the
product they bargained for and should be provided with a return of
the purchase price.
The lawsuit initially focused only on refunds but was later
expanded to include personal injury claims, with class members
complaining of symptoms while consuming the product.
Boyle said the adverse health consequences claim was certified by
the Nova Scotia Supreme Court but Organigram appealed that and the
certification was overturned by the Court of Appeal.
Wagner and Organigram wrangled in court over whether personal
injury claims were valid in a series of appeals.
In the process, Organigram argued that it was impossible to
determine whether it was specifically the pesticides that caused
symptoms, or whether it was cannabis use, in general, that caused
them.
RELATED: Proposed Settlement Reached In Lawsuit Against Organigram
"We sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, so
basically, we exhausted the appeal process with respect to that,
but we were denied leave," said Boyle.
According to documentation from Wagners relating to the lawsuit,
that appeal, sought in June 2020, was dismissed the following
November.
"We were kind of left with the consumer claims because of the other
aspect of the case – it wasn't allowed to go ahead based on the
decision of the court of appeal," Boyle said.
Wagners and Organigram agreed on the settlement in June, and the
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia approved it at an Aug. 31 hearing.
Boyle said the first payments to class members are expected to be
made in late October.
Huddle reached out to Organigram for comment but did not receive a
response before our publication deadline. Organigram, a subsidiary
of Organigram Holdings Inc., operates in New Brunswick, Quebec, and
Manitoba.
At the time of writing, two days after the settlement was approved,
Organigram's shares on the Toronto Stock Exchange were up 2.2
percent.
Sam Macdonald is a Huddle reporter in Moncton. Send him your
feedback and story ideas: macdonalds@huddle.today.[GN]
PBM NUTIRITIONALS: Agrees $2M Settlement in Baby Formula Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that PBM Nutritionals agreed to pay $2
million to resolve claims its baby formula products, sold under
brand names such as Burt's Bees Baby, Member's Mark and Up & Up,
don't make as many servings as advertised. Class members do not
need proof of purchase in order to file a claim.
The settlement benefits a nationwide class of consumers who
purchased Well Beginnings, Meijer Baby, Little Journey, Wesley
Farms, Burt's Bees Baby, Berkley Jensen, Parent's Choice, Earth's
Best Organic, Comforts, Up & Up, Babies "R" Us, Member's Mark or
Bobbie Baby brand formula products between Jan. 1, 2017, and July
21, 2022. A full list of included products is available on the
settlement website.
PBM Nutritionals is a manufacturer of baby formula. The company
sells baby formula under numerous brand names at retailers such as
Walmart, Target and Walgreens.
According to a class action lawsuit, baby formula sold under PBM
brand names is deceptively marketed as able to produce an inflated
number of servings. The plaintiffs in the case say each product can
make 7.9% to 12.1% less servings than what is listed on the product
packaging.
"Contrary to these representations, however, the Products contain
nowhere near enough powdered baby and infant formula to make the
represented number of bottles of formula when following the Feeding
Chart on the back labels of the Products," the baby formula class
action lawsuit claims.
Consumers say they were injured by this marketing because they
would have paid less for the formula products if they had known the
truth about how many servings each container would make.
PBM hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $2 million to
resolve these allegations.
Under the terms of the formula settlement, class members can
receive a cash payment based on the number of products they
purchased during the Class period.
Without proof of purchase, class members can claim up to five units
at a rate of $2 per unit, for a maximum payment of $10.
With proof of purchase, class members can claim up to 15 units at
the same rate of $2 per unit, for a maximum payment of $30.
PBM will also make labeling changes to its Well Beginnings, Meijer
Baby, Little Journey, Wesley Farms, Burt's Bees Baby, Berkley
Jensen, Parent's Choice, Earth's Best Organic, Comforts, Up & Up,
Babies "R" Us, Member's Mark and Bobbie Baby labels to better
inform customers about the serving capabilities of each container.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 18, 2022.
The final approval hearing for the formula settlement is scheduled
for Oct. 26, 2022.
In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Oct. 26, 2022.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who purchased Well Beginnings, Meijer Baby, Little
Journey, Wesley Farms, Burt's Bees Baby, Berkley Jensen, Parent's
Choice, Earth's Best Organic, Comforts, Up & Up, Babies "R" Us,
Member's Mark or Bobbie Baby brand formula products between
01/01/2017 - 07/21/2022
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
Proof of purchase not required but could potentially lead to a
higher payout
Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
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
10/26/2022
Case Name
White v. PBM Nutritionals, LLC, Case No. 22PH-CV00931 in the
Circuit Court of Phelps County, Missouri
Final Hearing
10/26/2022
Settlement Website
PBMLabelsettlement.com
Claims Administrator
White v. PBM Nutritionals, LLC
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
P.O. Box 225391
New York, NY 10150-5391
info@pbmlabelsettlement.com
833-512-2316
Class Counsel
David Steelman
Bryce C Crowley
STEELMAN GAUNT CROWLEY
Defense Counsel
Courtney L Baird
DUANE MORRIS LLP [GN]
PCG INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carter Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID CARTER; KIMBERLY BUTLER; and SAKINA CHEEKS, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PCG
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04504 (N.D. Il.,
Aug. 24, 2022) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal
and rest periods.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as customer service
representatives.
PCG INTERNATIONAL, INC. operates as a call center company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
ASH LAW, PLLC
402 W. Liberty St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48178
Telephone: (734) 234-5583
Email: cash@nationalwagelaw.com
- and -
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
55 E Monroe Street, Suite 3800
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
Email: AFrisch@forthepeople.com
- and -
Oscar Rodriguez, Esq.
HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C.
126 Main St
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1903
Telephone: (734) 662-4426
Email: orod@hooperhathaway.com
POMONA VALLEY: Fails to Properly, Timely Pay Wages, Guevara Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ENMA GUEVARA, on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees,
Plaintiff v. POMONA VALLEY HOSPITAL; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 22STCV27400 (Cal. Sup. Ct., August 23, 2022)
seeks for civil penalties against the Defendants pursuant to the
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 as a result of its alleged
violations of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants through temp agency as
an hourly-paid and non-exempt employee from approximately February
25, 2020 until her termination on or about March 3, 2021.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a representative of the
Labor and Workforce Development Agency on behalf of herself and
other current and former employees who also work, worked, or will
work for the Defendants as direct employees as well as temporary
employees. The Plaintiff claims that they were victims of the
Defendants' illegal wage and hours practices or policies such that
they were permitted by the Defendant to work without properly
compensating them for all hours they have worked.
The Plaintiff asserts these claims:
-- The Defendants failed to pay wages for all hours worked at
the legal minimum wage;
-- The Defendants failed to pay wages for overtime hours
worked at the overtime rate of pay;
-- The Defendants failed to pay wages to hourly non-exempt
employees for workdays that the Defendants failed to provide
legally required and compliant meal periods and rest periods;
-- The Defendants failed to timely pay earned wages during
employment;
-- The Defendants failed to provide complete and accurate wage
statements; and
-- The Defendants failed to pay employees all wages due at
time of termination/resignation;
Pomona Valley Hospital operates a hospital. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Danielle E. Montero, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Tel: (310) 432-0000
Fax: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
dmontero@lelawfirm.com
wht2@lelawfirm.com
PREMIUM CHOICE: Faces Nelson Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
JON NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PREMIUM CHOICE INSURANCE SERVICES, a
California limited liability company, EUGENE AGRANOVICH, an
individual, and JOHN DOE, an unknown business entity, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-06021 (C.D. Cal., August 24, 2022) is a class
action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent a prerecorded voice
to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone on or around April 21, 2022.
Additionally, the Defendant sent a solicitation email to the
Plaintiff in an attempt to sell its loans. The Plaintiff asserts
that he never consented to receive calls from the Defendants, nor
he had relationship whatsoever with the Defendants prior to the
aforementioned interactions, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' unsolicited calls, the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated individuals have allegedly suffered actual
and statutory damages, including annoyance and intrusion on privacy
and seclusion. Thus, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks an
injunction requiring the Defendants to cease all unlawful calls
without first obtaining the call recipients' express consent to
receive such calls. The Plaintiff also seeks actual damages and/or
statutory fines and penalties, reasonable attorney's fees and
costs, and other relief as the Court deems reasonable and just.
Premium Choice Insurance Services provides loan services. Eugene
Agranovich hired John Doe to place calls to thousands of phone
numbers of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
3 East 3rd Ave., Suite 200
San Mateo, CA 94401
Tel: (650) 781-8000
Fax: (650) 648-0705
E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com
PRINCESS CRUISES: Wins Appeal Over Exclusion of Passengers in Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Scheikowski at 9news.com.au reports that an Australian
class action over a deadly coronavirus outbreak on board the Ruby
Princess cruise ship cannot include passengers from the United
States, an appeal court has found.
In a majority decision, the Federal Court ruled the claim by
Patrick Ho - one of 696 passengers whose contracts were deemed to
be subject to US terms and conditions - be stayed.
Chief Justice James Allsop and Justice Sarah Derrington - with
Justice Steven Rares dissenting - allowed the appeal by Carnival
plc, the time charterer of the vessel, and Princess Cruise Lines
Ltd, the owner and operator of the vessel.
They had challenged a judge's 2021 decision rejecting a preliminary
application to stop a "sub-group" of overseas passengers from being
part of the action.
Many passengers contracted coronavirus and 28 died after the
outbreak on the Ruby Princess which left Sydney on March 8 and
returned on March 19, 2020 after sailing via a number of ports in
New Zealand.
Susan Karpik commenced representative proceedings against Carnival
and Princess, with the group being made up of passengers, executors
and close family.
She alleges the respondents negligently and in breach of their
duties of care allowed the voyage to proceed and failed to take
adequate measures to protect passengers from the risk of COVID-19.
They also allegedly failed to warn passengers of the risk of
contracting the disease.
Further, they allegedly engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct
and breached their consumer guarantees under the Australian
Consumer Law.
Of the 2651 paying passengers on board, the respondents alleged
that 696 contracted their cruise on US terms and conditions and 159
contracted on UK terms and conditions.
The balance are said to have contracted on Australian terms and
conditions.
The differing conditions include a class action waiver clause in
the US terms.
Justice Angus Stewart had ruled it wasn't necessary or appropriate
at this early stage of the proceedings to determine the law
applicable to the US and UK sub groups' negligence claims.
He noted a stay on the US passengers would result in the fracturing
of the litigation with essentially identical claims being brought
in the Federal Court and any stayed claims being brought in the
US.
But the Appeal Court ruled that the terms of carriage between
Carnival/Princess and Ho were governed by the US terms and
conditions incorporating the exclusive jurisdiction clause and the
class action waiver.
It concluded those clauses ought to be given effect and Ho's claim
should be stayed.
The court ordered the matter be remitted to Justice Stewart for
determination of the extent to which its reasons affect the claims
of other members of the class action. [GN]
SASOL LTD: Agrees to Pay $24M Settlement in Investors' Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sasol said it agreed to pay $24M to settle a class action lawsuit
brought by U.S. investors claiming it deliberately understated the
cost of its Lake Charles, Louisiana, chemical plant project, ending
a two-year legal battle.
The lawsuit was brought by Sasol (SSL) shareholders who claimed the
company's leadership at the time had on several occasions
deliberately underreported the project's cost to investors and the
public.
The project's costs jumped from an initial $8.9B in 2014 to as much
as $12.9B five years later.
A U.S. district court gave a final order confirming the settlement
on August 19, according to court documents.
Sasol (SSL) recently reported full-year adjusted earnings of 68.54
South African rand per share on revenues of 275B rand.[GN]
SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Court Modifies Class Cert. Briefing Sched
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA VILLANUEVA, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. SELECT
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC., a corporation; CONCENTRA HEALTH , INC.,
a corporation; SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION, a corporation; and 1 to
100, inclusive, Case No. 3:17-cv-06875-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Joseph C. Spero entered an order modifying class
certification briefing schedule as follows:
1. Deadline to file the Opposition September 15, 2022
to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification is:
2. Deadline to file the Reply is: October 18, 2022
3. Hearing will be held on the Motion November 18, 2022
for Class Certification and
Further Case Management
Conference on:
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RqyABk at no extra charge.[CC]
SERENA & LILY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Dicks Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA DICKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. SERENA & LILY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-07213 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2022) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.serenaandlily.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.
SERENA & LILY, INC. designs and sells furnishing products. The
Company offers bath towels, mirrors, lighting, chairs, sofas, beds,
nursery furniture, rugs, and windows.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
108-26 64th Avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, New York 11375
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
Facsimile: (929) 333-7774
Email:mars@khaimovlaw.com
STORM SMART: Conditional Status of Shutter Installer Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL GAUME, on behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. STORM SMART HOLDINGS
LLC, THE SMART COMPANIES, LLC, and STORM SMART BUILDING SYSTEMS
LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-253-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order:
1. Conditionally certify the following class of shutter
installers:
"All shutter installers who worked for Storm Smart in Fort
Myers Florida at any time between April 20, 2019 and
present who worked over 40 hours in any workweek and were
not paid overtime wages;"
2. Authorizing the form and content of the Notice and Consent
Form;
3. Within 10 days of the order, requiring the Defendants to
post the Notice and Consent Form in a conspicuous place at
STORM SMART's Idlewild facility;
4. Within 10 days of the order, requiring the Defendants to
produce a list with the names, addresses, phone numbers,
email addresses and last four digits of social security
numbers, for all current or former employees within the
class definition;
5. Within 10 days of Defendant's production of the list,
authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to send a copy of the
Notice and Consent Form all putative class members by U.S.
mail and email;
6. Allowing recipients 90 days from the Notice sent date to
return a signed Consent Form, authorizing electronic
signatures, and deeming consent forms returned by US mail
timely if postmarked within 90 days of the Notice sent
date; and
7. Designating the Plaintiff's counsel with responsibility
for giving notice to all putative class members in
accordance with the Court's order.
This case arises under the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff Guame was employed by STORM
SMART as a shutter installer from June 2018 until July 22, 2022.
The Complaint allegations arise from a uniform compensation policy
STORM SMART applied to Plaintiff and the other installers from
April 20, 2019, to the present.
STORM SMART sells, manufactures, and installs hurricane protection
products, including shutters, primarily to residential customers in
the Southwest Florida geographic area.
(https://www.stormsmart.com/about/).
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 22,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3R6kaqm
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason L. Gunter, Esq.
Conor P. Foley, Esq.
GUNTERFIRM
1514 Broadway, Suite 101
Fort Myers, FL 33901
Telephone: (239) 334-7017
E-mail: Jason@GunterFirm.com
Conor@GunterFirm.com
TESLA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Sudden Unintended Braking Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lurah Lowery at repairerdrivennews.com reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Tesla over unexpected and random
braking, often called "phantom braking," in its vehicles, which is
an issue the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
is currently investigating.
Plaintiff Jose Alvaraz Toledo, the owner of a 2021 Tesla Model 3,
filed the suit on Aug. 26 alleging that Tesla is rushing advanced
driver assistance system (ADAS) features to market "when the
technology is not yet ready and not yet safe."
Alvaraz Toledo contends that he bought his Tesla because of the
OEM's "marketed dependability and safety" of its vehicles and
wasn't told about a defect with the Autopilot and Automatic
Emergency Braking (AEB) features.
"Plaintiff Alvarez Toledo has experienced the Sudden Unintended
Braking Defect on several occasions since he started driving his
Class Vehicle. Specifically, Plaintiff Alvarez Toledo has twice
been operating his Class Vehicle under intended and foreseeable
circumstances using the autopilot system, when his vehicle suddenly
engaged the brakes and reduced his speed by about half."
According to the complaint, NHTSA "has fielded hundreds of
individual complaints in the last three years from drivers of Tesla
vehicles" over unexpected slow-downs and stops. Repairer Driven
News previously reported that the investigation began after NHTSA
received 758 reports of unexpected brake application in certain
2021-2022 Tesla Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The suit alleges that Tesla has known about the existence of the
braking defect because of pre-production testing, consumer
complaints, warranty data, dealership repair orders, and NHTSA
investigations. Tesla, which no longer has a media relations
department, did not respond to RDN's questions by the publication
deadline.
The lawsuit class includes all individuals or entities in the U.S.
that purchased, have leased - whether current or past, own or owned
a Tesla vehicle that has experienced unintended braking. A subclass
of Californians is also represented in the suit under the same
qualifications as the U.S. class. The vehicles includes are
primarily 2021-2022 Model 3s and Model Ys but aren't necessarily
limited to those, according to the complaint.
The plaintiff claims Tesla has:
"knowingly falsely concealed, suppressed, and/or omitted" the
defect in information about its vehicles;
breached its express warranty;
breached its implied warranty of merchantability;
breached its implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Act;
violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which "provides a cause of
action for any consumer who is damaged by the failure of a
warrantor to comply with a written or implied warranty;"
violated California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act by stating the
vehicles "had characteristics and benefits that they do not have,
represented that the Class Vehicles were of a particular standard,
quality, or grade when they were of another, and advertised the
Class Vehicles with the intent not to sell them as advertised;"
violated California's unfair competition law; and
has unjustly profited from the sale and lease of its vehicles.
The warranty breaches detailed in the suit are a result of Tesla
allegedly refusing to repair or replace its vehicles with the
defect "despite the fact that the Class Vehicles are under a
comprehensive warranty. . . Defendant promised to repair or replace
defective components arising out of defects in materials and/or
workmanship, such as the Defect, at no cost to owners or lessors of
the Class Vehicles."
"As a direct result of Tesla's wrongful conduct, Plaintiff and the
other members of the Class have suffered damages, including, inter
alia: (1) out-of-pocket expenses for repair of the Defect; (2)
costs for future repairs or replacements; (3) sale of their
vehicles at a loss; (4) diminished value of their vehicles; and/or
(5) the price premium attributable to the Autopilot feature."
Tesla states on its website that, "Autopilot enables your car to
steer, accelerate and brake automatically within its lane. Current
Autopilot features require active driver supervision and do not
make the vehicle autonomous."
However, the suit alleges that the defect "causes the Class
Vehicles to detect non-existent obstacles, triggering a braking
response and causing the Class Vehicles to abruptly decelerate or
stop completely, despite no need for this action."
"The Defect presents a safety hazard that distracts the Class
members and renders the Class Vehicles unreasonably dangerous to
consumers because it severely impacts a driver's ability to control
vehicle speed as expected under normal driving conditions and
maintain an appropriate speed based on traffic flow, thereby
increasing the risk of a rear-end collision."
It's also noted in the complaint that Tesla's owner's manuals hint
at the risk of false activations of AEB but only in small text.
"Several factors can affect the performance of Automatic Emergency
Braking, causing either no braking or inappropriate or untimely
braking, such as when a vehicle is partially in the path of travel
or there is road debris," a Model Y manual states. "It is the
driver's responsibility to drive safely and remain in control of
the vehicle at all times. Never depend on Automatic Emergency
Braking to avoid or reduce the impact of a collision."
In May 2021, Tesla chief executive Elon Musk said planned
modifications to the automated driving system would address
"phantom braking," which some Tesla drivers have long complained
about, according to Reuters.
In NHTSA's initial round of data and reports collected through its
2021 Standing General Order (SGO), 273 crashes involved a Tesla out
of the 392 Level 2 ADAS-equipped vehicles that were involved in
reported crashes.
The complaint states that after the death of a Tesla driver in
2016, which was reportedly the result of neither he nor Autopilot
detecting a truck crossing the highway ahead of him, the automaker
posted on its blog that the "accident" was a "statistical
inevitability."
Tesla stated that at the time of the accident and when it reported
the death to NHTSA, "That given its nature as a driver assistance
system, a collision on Autopilot was a statistical inevitability,
though by this point, not one that would alter the conclusion
already borne out over millions of miles that the system provided a
net safety benefit to society."
A jury trial is demanded. The suit also seeks an order awarding
statutory, compensatory, treble, and punitive damages; injunctive
relief enjoining the "illegal acts" and allegations made, an order
of restitution, and all other forms of equitable monetary relief.
Tesla has also been accused of falsely advertising its Autopilot
and Full Self-Driving advanced driver assistance system (ADAS)
features in California, which led to the passage of legislation in
the state to "prohibit a manufacturer or dealer from deceptively
naming or marketing" ADAS features including collision avoidance
systems or partial driving automation feature. If signed by Gov.
Gavin Newsom, the new law would also require dealers or
manufacturers "to provide the buyer or owner with a consumer notice
that describes the functions and limitations of those features."
[GN]
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid for Class Certification Due Sept. 13
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HALMAN ALDUBI PROVIDENT
AND PENSION FUNDS LTD., Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED, EREZ
VIGODMAN, EYAL DESHEH, ROBERT KOREMANS, and MICHAEL DERKACZ, Case
No. 2:20-cv-04660-KSM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge entered a
scheduling order as follows:
-- Motion for Class Certification: Sept. 13, 2022
-- Deadline for Lead Plaintiff to Sept. 16, 2022
Produce Materials Relied upon by
Expert(s) in forming his/her
Opinion:
-- Deadline for Defendants to Request Sept. 23, 2022
Documents from Lead Plaintiff in
Connection with Class Certification:
-- Completion of Document Production Oct. 7, 2022
from Lead Plaintiff in Connection
with Class Certification:
-- Completion of Depositions of Lead Nov. 7, 2022
Plaintiff and any Plaintiff
Expert(s) in Connection with Class
Certification:
-- Opposition to Motion for Class Dec. 6, 2022
Certification:
-- Deadline for Defendants to Produce Dec. 9, 2022
Materials Relied upon by Expert(s)
in forming his/her Opinion:
-- Completion of Depositions of any Jan. 6, 2023
the Defendant Expert(s) in
Connection with Class
Certification:
-- Reply in Further Support of Motion Feb. 3, 2023
for Class Certification:
-- Evidentiary Hearing: To be set by the
Court
Teva is an Israeli multinational pharmaceutical company with
headquarters in Tel Aviv, Israel.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TpIXqT at no extra charge.[CC]
TEXAS PRIDE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jones Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
KEITH JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TEXAS PRIDE DISPOSAL SOLUTIONS, LLC; TEXAS
PRIDE DISPOSAL SOLUTIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC; and KEVIN ATKINSON,
Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-02883 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 24, 2022) seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Jones was employed by the Defendants as waste disposal
driver.
TEXAS PRIDE DISPOSAL SOLUTIONS, LLC provides clean, consistent
solid waste and recycling collection services in and around the
greater Houston area. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
lauren@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: Faces Labor Suit in Kentucky Court
---------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2022, that the case captioned
"Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. and United Parcel
Service, Inc." had previously been certified as a class action in
Kentucky state court.
In the second quarter of 2019, the court granted the company's
motion for judgment on the pleadings related to the wage-and-hour
claims. The plaintiffs' appeal of this decision was denied;
however, in the second quarter of 2022 the plaintiffs were granted
discretionary review of these claims by the Kentucky Supreme
Court.
United Parcel Service, Inc. provides trucking and courier services
based in Georgia.
VERVENT INC: Bid for Summary Judgment vs Aliff Partly Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aliff et al., v. Vervent
Inc. et al., Case No. 20-cv-697-DMS-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Dana M. Sabraw entered an order denying in part and deferring in
part defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Defendants' motion seeks summary judgment as to all of
Plaintiff's claims, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO); the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA); California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practice Act
(Rosenthal Act); California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL); and (5)
negligent misrepresentation.
The Court denies the motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's
RICO and California UCL claims. Not only is the motion for summary
judgment premature, but even were it not premature, Plaintiff has
presented sufficient evidence to raise genuine issues of material
fact as to these claims.
The Court defers on the motion for summary judgment as to the
claims under the FDCPA, Rosenthal Act, and negligent
misrepresentation, as there are currently no appropriate class
representatives for these claims. The Plaintiff shall seek leave to
file a second amended complaint to add additional named plaintiffs
to represent the putative class on these claims by September 6,
2022, following which the Court can consider any renewed motion for
summary judgment or other appropriate motion as to these three
causes of action.
The putative class of Plaintiffs in this case are former students
who attended for-profit schools run by ITT Education Services, Inc.
The Plaintiffs' disputes arise out of the "PEAKS" student loan
program, which they allege was designed by Deutsche Bank Trust
Company Americas. Liberty Bank, N.A., issued PEAKS loans to ITT
students and subsequently sold the loans
to a trust ("the PEAKS Trust") established by DBTCA.
Vervent, Inc., formerly known as First Associates, Inc., was the
loan servicer for the PEAKS loan program. Activate Financial, LLC
is an "in-house" collection agency owned and controlled by Vervent
and the same individuals who are or were executives of Vervent:
David Johnson, Christopher Shuler, and Lawrence Chiavaro.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ecuPBv at no extra charge.[CC]
WASHINGTON: Ct. Approves $2.15MM Attyorneys' Fees in D.S. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.S. et al v. Washington
State Department of Children Youth and Families et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-00113-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Barbara J. Rothstein
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
order approving Attorneys' Fees as follows;
-- The parties' agreed upon attorneys' fees and costs award of
$2,150,000.00 to Plaintiffs is approved.
-- Pursuant to their agreement, the Defendants shall pay
$2,150,000.00 to Plaintiffs' counsel within 30 days
following the entry of this Order.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 9, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Kr04ol at no extra charge.[CC]
[*] $225,000 Settlement in FCRA Class Suit in Florida Discussed
---------------------------------------------------------------
pre-employ.com reports that under the FCRA, "If any person takes
any adverse action with respect to any consumer that is based in
whole or in part on any information contained in a consumer report,
the person shall. . . provide oral, written, or electronic notice
of the adverse action to the consumer." The required notice must
have the following:
-- Notification of intent to take adverse action
-- A copy of the background report
-- Contact information for the preparer of the report
-- A summary of the recipient's FCRA rights
-- A notice that the preparer did not influence the adverse
decision
In this case, the plaintiff alleges the defendant failed to comply
with these requirements. Instead, he claims denial of employment
opportunities based on a background check without providing a
pre-adverse action notice. As a result, the plaintiff states that
he never had the chance to view the report and judge whether the
information therein was accurate.
As a result, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the Circuit Court
of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County,
Florida. Subsequently, the case moved to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida. The parties engaged in
arbitration and came to this settlement agreement which provides a
settlement fund of $225,000 to resolve all claims.
This settlement fund includes $90,000 in attorneys' fees, $5,000 to
the named plaintiff, and the remainder divided on a pro-rata basis
among members of the settlement class. Currently, the class expects
approximately 300 members, meaning a per-member recovery of roughly
$400. This settlement agreement still awaits a final fairness
hearing and approval by the arbitrator on September 7th, 2022.
As this case shows, employers must ensure that their procedures for
performing background checks on applicants and employees fully
comply with the FCRA, including all required notices. To do so,
consider partnering with a background screening organization you
can trust to remain updated with the ever-shifting state and
federal requirements and help ensure that your policies stay in
compliance. [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 ***