/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220922.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, September 22, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 184
Headlines
12 CHAIRS BYN: Lorenzo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
7-ELEVEN INC: Wilim Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
A.K. RIKKS INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Dave Sues Over Mislabeling of Product
ADVANCED MECHANICAL: Sidoti Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
AE OUTFITTERS: Mackey Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Sales Calls
AETNA LIFE: Bid to Compel Docs & Info From Prolow Plaintiffs Denied
AGENTRA LLC: Wins in Part Bid for Summary Judgment in Abboud Suit
AKSYS GAMES LOCALIZATION: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMC NETWORKS INC: Mangum Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
AMC NETWORKS: Faces Class Action in Ill. for Privacy Violations
AP GAS & ELECTRIC: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
ARBELLA MUTUAL INSURANCE: Winn Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
ASHER LOGISTIX: Peralta Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ASSESSOR OF MALVERNE: Capone Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
ASSESSOR OF MINEOLA: Buttino Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
ASTRAZENACA PLC: Wins Suit as Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Claims
AUSSIE HOME: May Face Class Action for Unfair Mortgage Policy
AZURE POWER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 31
BCE-MACH LLC: Wake Energy Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
BEIERSDORF & BAYER: Agrees to Settle Benzene Class Suit for $2.3-M
BIG BEAVER: Xu Sues Over Unpaid Proper Compensations
BP EXPLORATION: Bid for Summary Judgment in Norwood B3 Case Granted
BUMBLE LANE HOLDING: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CASSADY ROOFING: Palomo Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
CIGNA CORP: Sued by Medical Societies for Underpaid Insurance
DIGNITY HEALTH: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Van Bebber Suit
DR. SQUATCH: Fleming Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Court Dismisses Souter's 2nd Amended Complaint
ELECTROMED INC: To Submit Bid to Settle Class Suit Over Data Breach
FCA US: Agrees to Settle Class Action Over Defective Minivans
FEDEX GROUND: Odea Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages
FIRST TEAM: Court Enters Final Judgment in Lalli Class Suit
FLORIDA: Tries to Delay Potential Class Suit for Medicaid Program
GALLERY M. INC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
GUARISCO FINE ARTS: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Unsafe Jail Conditions
INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE: Moore Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia
ISLAND PURSUIT: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
J M SMUCKER: Faces Class Suits Over Folgers Coffee and Jif Products
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Agrees to Settle Pelvic Mesh Suits for $204M
JSP LIFE AGENCY: De La Paz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
JUMPER MAYBACH: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
KANGA CARE: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KENTUCKY BRANDED: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KEYSTONE DOOR: Brodeur Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Gamboa Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class
KOHL'S CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 1
KORENS USA: Class Settlement in Taunton FLSA Suit Wins Prelim. Nod
LA GRANDE BOUCHERIE: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 11 Lead Plaintiff Due
LINCARE HOLDINGS: Morris Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
LISA-MARIE'S: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LOUISIANA: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of McZeal v. OGB, State
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Sued Over Unlawful Interception of Communications
MEDTRONIC PLC: Trustees of Welfare Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
MEMORIAL HEALTH: $2.5MM Class Settlement in Myers Suit Has Final OK
MGH GOURMET: Galdamez Sues Over Labor Code Violations
MINISO GROUP: Faces Investors' Lawsuits Over Securities Claims
MODA GROUP: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MOVE INC: Ganaway Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Personal Data
MUSTANG PLUMBING: Smith Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NABORS COMPLETION: Final Arbitration Award in Negrete Confirmed
NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Grice Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Loses Bid to Appeal TRO in Homaidan Suit
NEVADA DINER: Urgiles Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
NORTHFIELD HOLDING: Campbell Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
OVERBY-SEAWELL: Samsel Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
PARTS ID INC: Hasson Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
RAMON NAVA: Hernandez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
RAPID PLASTICS: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROMAN CATHOLIC: Reaches Class Settlement in Sexual Abuse Suit
SAINT FRANCIS HEALTH: Williams Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Simon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SEMA4 HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 7
SILVER AND PEWTER: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SMELLY PROOF: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Sauer Suit Removed to C.D. California
STAUNTON AREA: Faces Class Action Suit for Alleged BIPA Violations
STITCH FIX: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 25
TEXAS A&M: Faces Class Suit for Race-Based Hiring Practices
TMP INTERNATIONAL: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRACTOR SUPPLY: Higley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TRI CITY TRANSPORT: Heichel Sues Over Failure to Pay Full Wages
TWITTER INC: Johnson Fistel Files Securities Class Action
TWITTER INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 14 Lead Plaintiff Due
U.S. MERCHANTS: Pauli Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
UNITED MEDICAL: Court Narrows Claims in Norwood FDCPA Class Suit
UNITED STAFFING: Cannot Contact Class Members in Magtoles Suit
VISIBLE CHANGES: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VITALANT: Faces Class Action in Calif. for Labor, FCRA Violations
WALMART INC: Luthe Files Suit Over Customers' Privacy Violations
WALMART INC: Luthe Sues Over Unlawful Collection of PII
WEALTHSTREAM ADVISORS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WINTEROWD FINE ART: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
WISCONSIN: Sued for Lack of Legal Defense for Low Income Defendants
WP OPERATIONS: Clements' Class Settlement Wins Prelim. Approval
ZILLOW GROUP: Popa Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping
ZINNIA FOLK ARTS: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
*********
12 CHAIRS BYN: Lorenzo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Romario Lorenzo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. 12 CHAIRS BYN LLC d/b/a 12 CHAIRS CAFE, Case No.
1:22-cv-05350-BMC (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022), is brought against the
Defendant's flagrant and willful violations of Plaintiffs' rights
guaranteed to him by: the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act; the minimum wage provisions of the New York Labor
Law; the overtime provisions of the FLSA; the overtime provisions
of NYLL; the requirement that employers furnish employees with wage
statements on each payday containing specific categories of
information under the NYLL; the requirement that employers furnish
employees with a wage notice at the time of hiring containing
specific categories of accurate information, NYLL; and any other
claim(s) that can be inferred from the facts.
The Defendants required the Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did
work, well over 40 hours per week. However, the Defendant failed to
pay the Plaintiff at the minimum wage or overtime rate of pay of
one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for each hour that
Plaintiff worked per week in excess of forty, as the FLSA and the
NYLL require. Furthermore, the Defendants failed to furnish
Plaintiff with accurate and/or complete wage statements on each
payday as the NYLL requires or provide Plaintiff with a wage notice
containing the criteria enumerated under the NYLL, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a dishwasher, cook,
kitchen helper, and occasional delivery person for the Defendants
from January 2017 to December 14, 2020.
The Defendants owns and operates an Israeli Restaurant in Brooklyn,
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Louis M. Leon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
New York, NY 10018
Phone: (212) 583-7400
Email: LLeon@Cafaroesq.com
7-ELEVEN INC: Wilim Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 7-Eleven, Inc. The
case is styled as Eric Wilim, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04886
(N.D. Ill., Sept. 9, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
7-Eleven, Inc. -- http://www.7-eleven.com/-- is an American
multinational chain of retail convenience stores, headquartered in
Dallas, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road, Ste. 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
A.K. RIKKS INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A.K. Rikks, Inc. The
case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. A.K. Rikks, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07755 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
A.K. Rikk's -- https://akrikks.com/ -- is a luxury online retailer
for men's & women's clothing, shoes, accessories + home.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Dave Sues Over Mislabeling of Product
----------------------------------------------------------
Prushti Dave, Arlene Bergum, Emily Depol, Keya Johnigan, and
Brianna Mckay, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ALERE, PROCTER & GAMBLE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, SPD SWISS PRECISION DIAGNOSTICS GMBH, CHURCH
& DWIGHT CO., INC., TARGET CORPORATION, and WALGREEN CO., Case No.
4:22-cv-05191-DMR (N.D. Cal., Sept. 12, 2022), is brought arising
out of deceptive and otherwise improper business practices that the
Defendants engaged in with respect to the packaging of certain
ovulation test kits which are packaged in boxes and regularly sold
in major supermarkets, grocery stores, convenience stores, and
pharmacies throughout the United States, as well as on Amazon and
other online retailers.
Millions of people buy and rely upon the Ovulation Test Kits for
family planning purposes. The Defendants' Kits are advertised as
being able to tell women with 99% or greater accuracy when they
will ovulate, and thus when they are the most fertile and most
likely to be able to become pregnant. However, the Ovulation Test
Kits do not predict ovulation with 99% or greater accuracy. The
Kits merely test levels of Luteinizing Hormone ("LH"), which may or
may not indicate ovulation will occur. LH is made by a person's
pituitary gland and is present in varying levels for people of all
genders. LH levels generally rise quickly just before ovulation in
women, but LH levels can spike at varying times in the menstrual
cycle for a variety of other reasons unrelated to ovulation.
The Defendants' Kits identify when a person has a spike in LH--not
when ovulation will occur. The Defendants intentionally mislabel
their Kits as ovulation test kits. The Defendants know that their
Kits test LH and not ovulation, but marketing their products as
"Luteinizing Hormone Test Kits," which may or may not predict
ovulation, would be far less attractive to women seeking to get
pregnant. False promises such as these allow Defendants to
capitalize on reproductive anxiety and reap massive profits, well
in excess of $5,000,000 each year from unwitting consumers, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased, for their own use ovulation test kits
marketed and sold by the Defendants.
The Defendants produce, market, label and sell various ovulation
test kits in the state of California and throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. Finkelstein, Esq.
Brent S. Colasurdo, Esq.
UMBERG ZIPSER LLP
1920 Main Street, Suite 750
Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: (949) 679-0052
Email: mfinkelstein@umbergzipser.com
bcolasurdo@umbergzipser.com
- and -
Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq.
Natalie S. Pang, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 201-9150
Email: pbinkow@glancylaw.com
jrotter@glancylaw.com
npang@glancylaw.com
ADVANCED MECHANICAL: Sidoti Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Sidoti, Carl Sidoti, and Eric Cundiff, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated individuals v. ADVANCED
MECHANICAL PLUS, LLC, REMCO EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE, LLC DBA
RESTAURANT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-01602 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 9, 2022), is brought to recover
unpaid wages and unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, treble
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, seek all available relief
under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt
Pay Act.
The Defendants have a companywide policy called the "7-minute Rule"
rounding policy that applies to all Technicians, including the
Plaintiffs. Under Defendant's "7-minute Rule" rounding policy,
Technicians', including the Plaintiffs', Clock-in and Clock-out
time is rolled back to the latest 15-minute increment if the punch
is from minutes one through seven and rolled forward to the next
15-minute increment if the punch time is from minutes eight through
fifteen. The Defendants' company-wide "7-minute Rule" impacts the
extent of how much time Technicians, including the Plaintiffs are
not paid at the beginning of their workday and/or at the end of
their workday.
As a result of the Defendants' willful and illegal companywide pay
practices and policies, the Defendants did not pay Technicians,
including the Plaintiffs, for all hours worked and for any hours
worked over 40 in a workweek did not pay them at the rate of
one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay. The Defendants
willfully failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
Members all of their wages within 30 days of when they performed
the work. The Defendants knowingly, willfully, or with reckless
disregard carried out their illegal pattern or practice of failing
to pay overtimes wages with respect to the Plaintiffs and the
Putative Class Members in this action.
The Plaintiff are current and former Technicians employed by the
Defendant.
The Defendant is a mechanical services firm based in Lima, Ohio
that provides HVAC, refrigeration, plumbing, electrical and kitchen
equipment services to restaurants and retail units in Ohio,
Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, and Western Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Phone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
- and -
Adam L. Slone, Esq.
BRIAN G. MILLER CO., L.P.A.
250 West Old Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 270
Worthington, Ohio 43085
Phone: (614) 221-4035
Fax: (614) 987-7841
Email: als@bgmillerlaw.com
AE OUTFITTERS: Mackey Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Sales Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Mackey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AE OUTFITTERS RETAIL CO., Case No. 22-004345-CI (Fla.
6th Judicial Cir. Ct., Pinellas Cty., Sept. 8, 2022), is brought
under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act as a result of the
Defendant's unlawful telephonic sales calls.
To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in
telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior
express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Plaintiff and
the Class members have been aggrieved by the Defendant's unlawful
conduct, which adversely affected and infringed upon their legal
rights not to be subjected to the illegal acts at issue. Through
this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory
damages on behalf of the Plaintiff individually and the Class
members and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual and a "called party."
The Defendant is a retailer of consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
2110 West Platt Street
Tampa, FL 33606
Phone: (813) 422–7782
Facsimile: (813) 422–7783
Email: ben@theKRfirm.com
AETNA LIFE: Bid to Compel Docs & Info From Prolow Plaintiffs Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHARON PROLOW and MARK LEMMERMAN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AETNA
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 9:20-cv-80545 (S.D.
Fla.), Magistrate Judge William Matthewman of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida denies the Defendant's
Motion to Compel Documents and Information from Plaintiffs without
prejudice.
The cause is before the Court upon the following: (1) the
Defendant's Motion to Compel Documents and Information from
Plaintiffs; the Plaintiffs Sharon Prolow and Mark Lemmerman's
Response, the Defendant's Reply; and the parties' Joint Notice on
Discovery Status, filed pursuant to the Court's Aug. 8, 2022
Paperless Order. The Court held a hearing on the Motion via Zoom
video teleconference, on Aug. 23, 2022. After the hearing, the
Plaintiffs submitted certain documents for in camera review. The
Court has now had the opportunity to carefully review those
documents.
In the Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, Ms. Prolow and Mr.
Lemmerman -- individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated -- allege that "they were wrongfully denied coverage for
Proton Beam Radiation Therapy ('PBRT') under employee welfare
benefit plans issued by their employers and administered by the
Defendant," bringing the putative class action claim under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Utilizing the
Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint as the operative complaint, the
parties filed competing motions for summary judgment.
Ultimately, the Court denied the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment and granted the Plaintiffs' partial motion for summary
judgment. To this end, it found that the Defendant's "decision to
deny PBRT coverage was de novo wrong as to both Ms. Prolow and Mr.
Lemmerman and reversed the Defendant's decision to deny PBRT
benefits." Accordingly, it found the Plaintiffs entitled to damages
in their capacity as class representatives, ruling that the case
"shall proceed to the class certification processes and trial on
the remaining issues pursuant to the Court's extant Scheduling
Order."
After numerous discovery disputes in the interim period, the
Defendant filed the instant Motion. Within the Motion, it moved to
compel: (1) "Ms. Prolow to produce her employment agreement with
AllianceBernstein"; (2) "Ms. Prolow and Mr. Lemmerman to produce
their engagement letters with their legal counsel in this action";
and (3) "Ms. Prolow to respond fully to Aetna's Interrogatory
regarding the damages she seeks in this case."
However, following the filing of the Plaintiffs' Response, the
Defendant's Reply, and the parties' Joint Notice, only one of the
three bases for which the Defendant initially filed its Motion
remained. Specifically, in the parties' Joint Notice -- filed in
anticipation of the Aug. 23, 2022 Zoom VTC hearing -- the parties
represented that Court intervention was required only as to the
portion of the Defendant's Motion seeking to compel engagement
letters between Plaintiffs and their legal counsel. Consequently,
during the Aug. 23, 2022 Zoom VTC hearing, the Court heard argument
on the Defendant's Motion solely on that matter.
At the hearing, the Court reserved ruling and required the
Plaintiffs' counsel to submit their two engagement letters with the
counsel to Chambers for purposes of conducting in camera review.
That same day, the Plaintiffs emailed the two engagement letters at
issue to the Chambers for the Court's review.
Due to the parties resolving two of the three issues raised in the
Defendant's Motion, Judge Matthewman discusses only the parties'
positions pertaining to the remaining issue -- The Plaintiffs'
production of engagement letters with their legal counsel.
In the Defendant's Motion, the Defendant seeks to compel "Ms.
Prolow and Mr. Lemmerman to produce their engagement letters with
their legal counsel in this action." It maintains that the
Plaintiffs have failed to distinguish its cited cases, which
establish that matters involving the receipt of fees from a client
are not generally privileged. Moreover, with respect to the
Plaintiffs' objections based on relevancy and proportionality, it
contends that "the engagement letters are highly relevant to its
damages defense, given that the Plaintiffs' counsel will
undoubtedly seek attorney fees as part of a damages award."
In their Response, the Plaintiffs object to production of
engagement letters with counsel solely on the basis of privilege
and relevancy. They argue that "courts in this district have held
that class representatives' engagement letters with counsel are not
discoverable, absent a showing by the defendant that a conflict of
interest exists." They state that the engagement letters at issue
do not promise or propose incentive payments to them, stating that
they have followed, and will continue to follow and abide by,
current Eleventh Circuit precedent. Additionally, they argue that
the cases the Defendant cites in support of disclosure of the
engagement letters are inapposite and do not address whether fee
arrangements are relevant in class action suits. Further, the
Plaintiffs argue that a motion to compel engagement agreements to
determine fees and costs is premature and may never be required, as
the parties "must comply with Local Rule 7.3" first.
In their Reply, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs'
engagement letters -- which "address the Plaintiffs' attorney fees
and the financing of the lawsuit, which goes to the Plaintiffs'
suitability as representatives of the putative class" -- is not
privileged information. Turning to relevancy, it argues that the
Plaintiffs' engagement letters "are relevant to the claims and
defenses in the case." Finally, it contends that the Plaintiffs'
citation to certain case is inapplicable to the case at hand.
Judge Matthewman finds that the Defendant relies upon the body of
law establishing that retainer or engagement agreements (or
letters) are both discoverable and relevant where "part of a
plaintiff's prayer for relief is his attorney's fees. The
Plaintiffs in turn maintain that the relevancy of engagement
agreements is of a different nature in the class action context.
Judge Matthewman holds that he need not address the intricacies of
engagement letters in the class action context or whether the
Defendant's distinction has a meaningful impact on any privilege or
relevancy analysis, as the Plaintiffs have provided the Court with
the engagement letters of Ms. Prolow and Mr. Lemmerman for in
camera review. And, review of those engagement letters evidences a
lack of relevancy at this time. The two engagement letters are
standard contingency fee agreements which do not contain any hourly
rates, and which do not contain any information relevant to the
Plaintiffs' ability to serve as class representatives.
Moreover, while the case involves a situation in which the Court
has determined that the Plaintiffs (as the class representatives)
are entitled to damages, the Court has not yet certified the
putative class or made any determination on class damages.
Therefore, as in Devries, Judge Matthewman finds that the
Plaintiffs' engagement letters with their legal counsel are not
relevant under Rule 26(b)(1) at this stage of the litigation.
Accordingly, despite the Plaintiffs' objections based on both
privilege and relevancy, Judge Matthewman finds this discovery
dispute can be settled entirely on relevancy, without the necessity
of addressing the privilege arguments, and that the Defendant's
Motion must be denied due to a lack of relevancy at this stage of
the action.
In light of the foregoing, Judge Matthewman denies the Defendant's
Motion to Compel Documents and Information from Plaintiffs. This
denial is without prejudice to the Defendant's ability to seek such
discovery (the two engagement letters) in the future, should it
have a good faith basis to do so, or if necessary, during the Local
Rule 7.3 procedure.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/24phyes9 from Leagle.com.
AGENTRA LLC: Wins in Part Bid for Summary Judgment in Abboud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MONICA ABBOUD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AGENTRA, LLC, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 3:19-CV-00120-X (N.D. Tex.), Judge Brantley Starr
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division, grants in part and denies in part Agentra's motion
for summary judgment and denies Abboud's motion for summary
judgment.
Ms. Abboud asserts claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA) against Agentra, a Texas-based insurance agency. She
challenges phone calls and text messages that Agentra (or a
third-party acting on its behalf and for its benefit) placed to her
and other cellphone users allegedly in violation of the TCPA.
Ms. Abboud alleged receipt of both texts and calls from Agentra,
and the Court previously certified two classes of similarly
situated individuals: (1) consumers who received one or more text
messages from Agentra in the same manner as Abboud; and (2)
consumers who were called on their cellphones by Agentra to promote
insurance products using the same equipment that was used to call
Abboud.
Both parties now move for summary judgment.
In Agentra's Motion for Summary Judgment, it raises three main
arguments in support of its motion for summary judgment. The first
is that all of Abboud's claims are barred because of a settlement
in another class-action TCPA case. If Agentra wins this argument,
it would dispose of all of Abboud's claims -- those based on calls
and those based on text messages. Agentra's second argument is that
Abboud consented to receiving the text messages, and thus that the
Court should dismiss Abboud's text-message claims. Its third
argument is also about Abboud's text-message claims; it argues that
the software that it uses to send text messages does not qualify as
an "automatic telephone dialing system" under the TCPA.
Judge Starr rejects Agentra's first argument, accepts the second,
and need not address the third. First, he explains that the test
for res judicata has four elements: (1) the parties are identical
or in privity; (2) the judgment in the prior action was rendered by
a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the prior action was
concluded by a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the same claim
or cause of action was involved in both actions." Generally, res
judicata applies to class actions.
In the case, he determines that the parties genuinely dispute
whether Abboud was sold an Agentra product and, therefore, he
cannot find that Abboud's claims are barred under principles of res
judicata. Because he finds that the first element of res judicata's
test is not satisfied, he does not address the remaining three
elements.
Judge Starr also opines that Agentra is entitled to summary
judgment on Abboud's text-message claims because she consented to
receiving the text messages. He need not "assume" anything about
Agentra's standard practice, because it provided evidence of it.
Abboud provides no caselaw supporting her argument that Agentra
can't win summary judgment based on the type of evidence it
provided
As to Abboud's Motion for Summary Judgment, Judge Starr finds
several problems. First, she filed it after the deadline had passed
and she did not seek the Court's leave to do so. Second, her brief
has substantive problems. She filed a combined brief in support of
her motion for summary judgment and in response to Agentra's motion
for summary judgment. If the Court very generously interpreted
Abboud's brief, the singular argument that she advances in favor of
summary judgment for her involves her text-message claims and is
that Agentra's text-message software is an "automatic telephone
dialing system" under the TCPA. But she loses on that claim because
Agentra has shown that Abboud consented to receiving the text
messages. And the rest of Abboud's motion is responsive to
Agentra's motion for summary judgment. So, Abboud has failed to
show that she is entitled to summary judgment on any of her
claims.
In light of the foregoing, Judge Starr grants in part and denies in
part Agentra's motion for summary judgment. He grants the motion
with respect to Abboud's text-message claims and dismisses with
prejudice those claims. He denies the motion with respect to
Abboud's phone-call claims.
Judge Starr denies Abboud's motion for summary judgment.
She orders the parties to submit a status report by Sept. 28, 2022.
In that status report, they should indicate which, if either, of
the following days would be suitable to try the case: November 28
or December 5.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2bmy42hy from
Leagle.com.
AKSYS GAMES LOCALIZATION: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aksys Games
Localization, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Aksys Games
Localization, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07775 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 12,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Aksys Games Localization, Inc. -- https://aksysgames.com/ -- is a
video game publisher that specializes in translating and localizing
Japanese video games for English-speaking markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
AMC NETWORKS INC: Mangum Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMC Networks Inc. The
case is styled as Daineira Mangum, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AMC Networks Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04857 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 8, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
AMC Networks -- https://www.amcnetworks.com/ -- is an American
entertainment company headquartered in 11 Penn Plaza, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon Michael Wise, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Phone: (314) 833-4825
Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com
AMC NETWORKS: Faces Class Action in Ill. for Privacy Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Street Media Writer Wilson Fay shared that Daineira Mangum
filed a class action complaint in the Northern District of Illinois
against AMC Networks, Inc. alleging violations of the Video Privacy
Protection Act (VPPA).
The complaint states that the VPPA was initially passed in 1988 to
protect the privacy of individuals' and their families' video
rental, purchase and viewing data. Further, it states that VPPA was
passed to protect with the belief that such viewing information
"reveal our likes and dislikes, our interests and our whims" and is
essential to an individual's right to privacy.
Recently, several other corporations have been targeted under the
VPPA or similar state laws including Apple, Bloomberg News,
Patreon, HGTV, and Amazon.
In the present complaint, the plaintiff alleges that AMC has a
practice of knowingly disclosing personally identifiable
information and viewing information to Meta Platforms, Inc., the
parent company of Facebook. The plaintiff alleges that AMC
collected and shared information through its video media provider
Shudder.
Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant installed
Facebook's tracking pixel code on Shudder allowing it to invisibly
collect users' information when digital subscribers enter the
streaming service or its accompanying app to view content.
Additionally, the complaint states that Shudder then tracks and
discloses to Facebook the digital subscriber's viewed video media
and their Facebook ID. Further, the complaint purports that this
occurs even when the digital subscriber has not shared or consented
to share such information, and the defendant in turn profits from
providing the information to Facebook.
The plaintiff argues that AMC chose to disregard her and hundreds
of thousands of other Shudder digital subscribers' statutorily
protected privacy rights by releasing their sensitive data to
Facebook. Accordingly, the plaintiff brought the present suit on
behalf of herself, who has been a Shudder digital subscriber since
2021, and all other digital subscribers to Shudder who had their
personal viewing information disclosed to Facebook by AMC.
The complaint alleges a single cause of action, violation of the
VPPA, and seeks class certification, declaratory and injunctive
relief, punitive damages, restitution, $2,500 for each class member
in accordance with the VPPA, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees,
and costs. The plaintiff is represented by Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane
Conway & Wise and Bailey & Glasser LLP.[GN]
AP GAS & ELECTRIC: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AP Gas & Electric
(PA), LLC. The case is styled as Stewart Abramson, individually and
on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated
v. AP Gas & Electric (PA), LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01299-MPK (W.D.
Pa., Sept. 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
AP Gas & Electric (APG&E) -- https://www.apge.com/ -- provides
affordable electricity to residential and commercial customer in
Texas, Ohio, Maryland, New Jersey, & Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq.
P.O. Box 244
Bellefonte, PA 16823
Phone: (814) 777-5080
Email: jjackson@bower-law.com
ARBELLA MUTUAL INSURANCE: Winn Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arbella Mutual
Insurance Company. case is styled as Kendra Winn, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Arbella Mutual
Insurance Company, Case No. 2284CV02064 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk
Cty., Sept. 8, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Contract / Business Cases."
Arbella Insurance -- https://www.arbella.com/ -- is a regional
property and casualty insurance company providing business and
personal insurance in Massachusetts and Connecticut, as well as
business insurance in Rhode Island and New Hampshire.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
Kevin John McCullough, Esq.
John Richard Yasi, Esq.
FORREST, MAZOW, MCCULLOUGH, YASIANDYASI, PC
2 Salem Green Suite 2
Salem, MA 01970
- and -
David Relethford, Esq.
LAMOTHE, MCNIFF, RELETHFORD, LLC
201 Washington St., Suite 205
SALEM, MA 01970
The Defendant is represented by:
Roberta R. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERTA FITZPATRICK
101 Arch St 17th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
ASHER LOGISTIX: Peralta Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Peralta, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
v. ASHER LOGISTIX, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 22STCV29327 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 8, 2022),
is brought against the Defendant's failure tp pay all wages,
including minimum, regular, overtime and doubletime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
Commission Order.
These claims are based on the Defendants' failures to: pay all
wages, including minimum, regular, overtime and doubletime wages,
earned for all hours worked at the correct rates of pay; provide
all meal periods; authorize and permit all rest breaks; Pay premium
wages for unprovided meal periods; pay premium wages for unprovided
rest breaks; Indemnify for necessary work-related expenditures;
issue only accurate and complete itemized wage statements; timely
pay wages during employment; timely pay wages upon termination of
employment; and maintain accurate employment records, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in El Monte in the
position of hourly, non-exempt delivery driver.
Asher Logistix, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of California and also a citizen of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David G. Spivak, Esq.
Maya Cheaitani, Esq.
THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
8605 Santa Monica Bivd., PMB 42554
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Phone: (213) 725-9094
Fax: (213) 634-2485
Email: david@spivaklaw.com
maya@spivaklaw.com
- and -
Walter L. Haines, Esq.
UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
4276 Katella Ave., Suite 301
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
Phone: (562) 256-1047
Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
Email: walter@uelglaw.com
ASSESSOR OF MALVERNE: Capone Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Incorporated Village of Malverne, et al. The case is styled as Gina
Capone, Michael Bush, all other similarly situated Petitioners on
the annexed SCHEDULE A v. The Assessor of the Incorporated Village
of Malverne, The Board of Assessment Review of the Incorporated
Village of Malverne, Respondents, Case No. 612070/2022 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Nassau Cty., Sept. 9, 2022).
The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."
Malverne -- https://www.malvernevillage.org/ -- is a village in the
Town of Hempstead in Nassau County, on Long Island, in New York,
United States.[BN]
The Petitioners are represented by:
MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP
132 Spruce St
Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915
ASSESSOR OF MINEOLA: Buttino Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Village of Mineola, et al. The case is styled as Nicholas Buttino,
all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A
v. The Assessor of the Village of Mineola, The Board of Assessment
Review of the Village of Mineola, Respondents, Case No. 612071/2022
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Sept. 9, 2022).
The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."
Mineola -- https://www.mineola-ny.gov/ -- is a village in and the
county seat of Nassau County, on Long Island, in New York, United
States.[BN]
The Petitioner is represented by:
MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP
132 Spruce St
Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915
ASTRAZENACA PLC: Wins Suit as Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Endpoints News Associate Editor Paul Schloesser wrote that
AstraZeneca never got its Covid-19 vaccine authorized in the US,
and while shareholders have tried taking the UK pharma to court, a
judge has now squashed that effort.
Federal Judge Paul Oetken of the US Southern District of New York
approved the pharma company's motion to dismiss a class action
suit. The lawsuit alleged the company made misleading statements
about the clinical testing of its Covid-19 vaccine candidate
AZD1222.
The suit was filed over multiple issues certain shareholders raised
in the pharma's clinical trial. Alleged failures included
AstraZeneca giving some participants half the proper dose of a
vaccine.
"The Phase II/III clinical trials for AZD1222 consisted of a
patchwork of disparate patient subgroups, each with subtly
different treatments, undermining the validity and importance of
the conclusions that could be drawn from the clinical data across
these disparate patient populations," according to the amended
complaint. The legal action was filed in early 2021.
AstraZeneca filed a motion to dismiss, saying that the complaint
did not state a claim.
Oetken was not convinced that the pharma made any inaccurate
statements. In his ruling, he wrote, "There is no generalized duty
to disclose negative facts, per precedent in other cases; and
plaintiffs have not identified any inaccurate, misleading or
incomplete statement relating to AZD1222's dosing during
AstraZeneca and Oxford's phase 2/3 clinical trials for AZD1222,"
adding that everything the plaintiffs identified was completely
accurate.
Beyond that, the judge noted a few other issues in the plaintiff's
case for the reasons why he threw it out:
A. The plaintiffs did not comply with his court's individual rules
on amending its complaint, despite having the opportunity to do so;
B. The plaintiffs did not suggest how they would amend the
already-amended complaint to remedy the grounds for dismissal; and
C. On top of those factors, "the Court concludes that amendment
would be futile under the circumstances."
Monday's ruling reflects what AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot told
the BBC in June. Regarding its Covid-19 vaccine development, he
said, "I don't think I would do anything differently from what we
did." [GN]
AUSSIE HOME: May Face Class Action for Unfair Mortgage Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Property Tribune, Shine Lawyers has announced it
is investigating a potential class action for homeowners who were
sold a policy by Aussie Home Loans that ultimately had limited or
low value.
Tens of thousands of homeowners were sold the Mortgage Protection
Policy despite it having little to no value.
The policy was described as similar in nature to life insurance -
it would help cover home loan repayments in the event of the
mortgage holder's illness, loss of employment, or death.
Shine alleges this was unnecessary as many customers already had
similar and better coverage, and there were also other policies
available that were cheaper and provided better coverage.
The investigation will examine whether brokers owed a duty of care
to act in the best interest of their clients, whether that duty was
breached, and whether the sale of the product was deceptive or
misleading, or amounted to unconscionable conduct.
Rebecca Jancauskas, Class Actions Practice Leader, said more often
than not first homebuyers were forced to hand over an extra $1,000
or more annually to pay for such policies.
"It's hard enough to get a foot on the property ladder, and if
brokers are selling unnecessary insurance it makes it even harder.
Buying a home is a complex and stressful process. We're
investigating whether Aussie Home Loans exploited its clients by
selling them a policy that was essentially worthless," said Ms.
Jancauskas.
As part of the investigation, Shine is looking to speak with
anybody who bought a Mortgage Protection Policy from Aussie Home
Loans from September 2016 onwards.
An Aussie Home Loans spokesperson told The Property Tribune they
offer thousands of mortgage and insurance products but do not issue
insurance itself.
"We are aware of media reports regarding a law firm reviewing
aspects of an insurance product, offered by a third-party insurer
through Aussie," the spokesperson said.
"Aussie has not received any correspondence relating to these
claims and therefore is unable to provide further comment." [GN]
AZURE POWER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
BussinessWire posted that Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Azure Power Global Limited ("Azure" or the "Company")
(NYSE: AZRE) and certain of its officers, on behalf of all persons
and entities that purchased, or otherwise acquired Azure securities
between June 15, 2021 and August 26, 2022, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/azre.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants
failed to disclose to investors that:
(1) there were procedural irregularities, including deviations from
safety and quality standards, at one of Azure's plants;
(2) certain project data was manipulated;
(3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's internal controls
and procedures were not effective;
(4) Azure had received a credible whistleblower report alleging
such misconduct; and
(5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If the participants
wish to review a copy of the Complaint, they can visit the firm's
site: www.bgandg.com/azre or may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Law Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If the
investors suffered a loss in Azure, they have until October 31,
2022, to request that the Court appoint them as lead plaintiff.
Their ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that them
serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC represents investors in
securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits.
The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for
investors nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
Contacts
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com
BCE-MACH LLC: Wake Energy Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BCE-Mach LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Wake Energy LLC, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. BCE-Mach LLC, BCE-Mach III LLC, Case
No. 5:22-cv-00794-JD (W.D. Okla., Sept. 8, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Contract Dispute.
BCE-Mach is a partnership between Mach Resources LLC and Bayou City
Energy Management LLC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brady L Smith, Esq.
Harry S Jordan, IV, Esq.
BRADY SMITH LAW, PLLC
211 N. Robinson Ave., Ste. 1320
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: (405) 293-3029
Email: brady@BLSmithlaw.com
skeeter@blsmithlaw.com
BEIERSDORF & BAYER: Agrees to Settle Benzene Class Suit for $2.3-M
------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Caldwell posted through Global Cosmetics News that
Beiersdorf and Bayer will pay some US$2.3 million to settle a class
action suit brought against the manufacturers following the
discovery that its Coppertone sunscreen was contaminated with
benzene.
As the current owner of the Coppertone brand, Beiersdorf recalled
12 lots of the line's spray sunscreen in September 2021 after the
product was found to have been contaminated with benzene. A group
of shoppers subsequently launched a lawsuit against the German
manufacturer of Nivea and former Coppertone owner, Bayer
Healthcare.
Under the terms of the settlement, Beiersdorf and Bayer have not
admitted any wrongdoing. Class members will receive a full refund
for the covered products bought with proof of purchase or receive a
rebate equal to the average retail price for up to six products
without proof of purchase. [GN]
BIG BEAVER: Xu Sues Over Unpaid Proper Compensations
----------------------------------------------------
Nancy Xu, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. BIG BEAVER SS #205, LLC, a Michigan Corporation, and FRANCIS
ASKER a/k/a FRANK ASKER, an individual, Case No.
2:22-cv-12124-DPH-APP (E.D. Mich., Sept. 8, 2022), is brought
against the Defendants for unpaid wages and proper compensations
and to seek all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.
The Plaintiff was paid by Defendants on fixed hourly wage, but also
received tips from customers of the restaurant. Additionally, all
of the Defendants' servers performed the same day-to-day job
duties, which included interacting with customers, serving them
food and beverages, and cleaning. In violation of the FLSA, the
Defendants maintained an enterprise-wide policy of confiscating all
tips received by servers from the customers of the restaurant, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as a server in the Defendants' Slippery Slider
restaurants.
The Defendants owns and operates several restaurants, including the
Savvy Sliders restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Wahl, Esq.
STERLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C.
33 Bloomfield Hills Pkwy, Ste. 205
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-2913
Phone: 248-633-8916
Email: gwahl@sterlingattorneys.com
- and -
Charles R. Ash, Esq.
ASH LAW, PLLC
402 W. Liberty St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48178
Phone: 734-234-5583
Email: cash@nationalwagelaw.com
BP EXPLORATION: Bid for Summary Judgment in Norwood B3 Case Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AUSTIN NORWOOD, ET AL. v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION
INC., ET AL., Civil Action No. 17-3203 (E.D. La.), Judge Lance M.
Africk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons granting:
a. the motion in limine to exclude the opinions of the
Plaintiffs' medical causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook,
filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc.; BP
America Production Co.; BP p.l.c.; Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc.; Transocean Deepwater, Inc; Transocean
Holdings, LLC; Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling,
Inc.; Transocean, Ltd.; and Triton Asset Leasing GmbH; and
b. their motion for summary judgment.
The instant action is a "B3" case arising out of the 2010 Deepwater
Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. B3 cases involve "claims
for personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil
and/or other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g.,
dispersant)" -- In re Oil Spill by Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in
Gulf of Mexico, on Apr. 20, 2010, No. MDL 2179, 2021 WL 6053613, at
*9 (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2021) (Barbier, J.).
In the course of the MDL proceedings, Judge Barbier approved the
Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement, which included a Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO")
permitting certain class members to sue the defendants for
later-manifested physical conditions. The B3 plaintiffs, by
contrast, either opted out of the class action settlement agreement
or were excluded from its class definition. To prevail on their
claims, the "B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of the
claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals
used during the response."
The Plaintiffs allege that from late May 2010 through early August
2010, following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Norwood was
employed in Navarre and Pensacola Beach, Florida, to "locate and
'boom' oil dispersants." As part of this employment, Norwood
"removed oiled debris & tar from the water by hand" and "would also
drag the oil boom behind the boat and skim oil & dispersants from
the water." The Plaintiffs allege that Norwood was exposed to oil
and dispersants during the course of his employment as a clean-up
worker, and as a resident of Santa Rose Beach, Florida.
According to them, as a result of this exposure, Norwood suffers
from, among other things, difficulty breathing, recurring cough and
bronchitis, blurred vision, sinus issues, nausea and vomiting,
severe digestive issues, blood in his stool, numbness and tingling
in his extremities, fatigue, insomnia, anxiety, skin issues such as
blistering and itchy skin,9 syncope/fainting, swollen intestines,
"liver function off," and a tumor on his femur. Margaret Norwood,
Norwood's wife, has asserted a claim for loss of consortium based
on her husband's alleged medical conditions.
The Plaintiffs filed the instant civil action, seeking a jury trial
with respect to their claims, which include negligence, gross
negligence, and willful misconduct; strict liability pursuant to
the Florida Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Control Act, Fla.
Stat. Section 376.011; and a derivative claim of loss of
consortium.
To support their claim that exposure to oil and dispersants caused
Norwood's medical conditions and symptoms, the Plaintiffs provide
both specific and general medical causation analyses completed by
Cook. Cook is a retired Navy physician, a fellow of the American
College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, and is board
certified in occupational medicine, public health, and general
preventative medicine.
Mr. Cook's general causation report utilized a "general causation
approach to determine if a reported health complaint can be the
result of exposures sustained in performing clean-up work" and to
assess "the likelihood that occupational exposures that occurred
during work in oil spill cleanup caused disease, contributed to the
development of disease, affected the severity of disease, or
exacerbated pre-existing disease that workers have associated with
potential exposures. His specific causation report concludes that
Mr. Norwood had exposures to multiple chemicals. The combined
effect of these multiple chemical exposures is difficult to study
in oxicology. Mr. Norwood has multiple complaints, each with
various potential causes. Some of his complaints are
contemporaneous to his exposures sustained during oil spill
response and cleanup work, but others better explained by causes
that are not related to these exposures.
In the Defendants' Motion in Limine, with respect to general
causation, the Defendants assert that Cook's general causation
opinion should be excluded because it is unreliable to the extent
that the opinion fails: (1) to identify a harmful dose of exposure
to any particular chemical; (2) to verify the Plaintiffs'
diagnoses; and (3) to follow accepted methodology for evaluating
scientific literature. They also argue that Cook's failure to
verify the Plaintiffs' diagnoses further renders his opinion
unreliable.
Judge Africk holds that concerns for the reliability of Cook's
general causation report based on his failure to identify a harmful
level of exposure, to verify the Plaintiffs' diagnoses, and to use
acceptable methodology in evaluating the scientific literature
referenced in his report render his opinions unreliable. Therefore,
as he finds Cook's general causation analysis to be unreliable, the
existence of a specific causation report is still insufficient to
satisfy the Plaintiffs' burden of proof.
Having determined that Cook's general causation report should be
excluded and that Cook's specific causation report is insufficient
to meet the Plaintiffs' burden of proof, Judge Africk now turns to
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The issue of general
causation is a necessary element of teh Plaintiffs' claims against
the Defendants. Cook is the Plaintiffs' sole expert on general
causation. With Cook's opinion on general causation now excluded,
the Plaintiffs lack expert testimony with respect to general
causation. As a result, they have failed to present a genuine issue
of material fact with respect to their claims that their injuries
were caused by exposure to oil and dispersants. Accordingly, the
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.
For the reasons he stated, Judge Africk grants the motion in limine
to exclude the causation testimony of Cook and the motion for
summary judgment. He dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiffs'
claims.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4ptuc27z from Leagle.com.
BUMBLE LANE HOLDING: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bumble Lane Holding,
LLC. The case is styled as Valerie Dicks, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Bumble Lane Holding, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-07670-ER (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bumble Lane -- https://www.bumblelane.com/ -- is a spa in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana offering a rejuvenating facial, invigorating body
scrub, therapeutic massage or luxurious nail service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
CASSADY ROOFING: Palomo Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Palomo, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved
Employees v. CASSADY ROOFING, INC., a California Corporation, and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22NWCV00806 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 8, 2022), is brought against the
Defendant for Violation of California Labor Code as a result of the
Defednant failure to pay compensation.
The Defendants failed to provide employment records; failed to pay
overtime and double time; failed to provide rest and meal periods;
failed to pay minimum wage; failed to keep accurate payroll records
and provide itemized wage statements; failed to pay reporting time
wages; failed to pay split shift wages; failed to pay all wages
earned on time; failed to pay all wages earned upon discharge or
resignation; failed to reimburse necessary, business-related
expenses; failed to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual in
violation of Labor Code, the California Code of Regulations and the
applicable Wage Orders, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Cassady Roofing, INC., from March 31,
2022 until April 22, 2022.
Cassady Roofing, Inc. are procure and deliver materials for
roofers, and otherwise assist roofers in deconstruction and
construction of roofs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
Kevin P. Crough, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 1-818-696-2306
Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307
Email: haig@hbklawyers.com
cathy@hbklawyers.com
kevin@hbklawyers.com
CIGNA CORP: Sued by Medical Societies for Underpaid Insurance
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to Paige Minemyer's cover for Fierce Healthcare, the
American Medical Association (AMA) has joined a class-action
lawsuit against Cigna, alleging the insurer underpaid for claims
filed by providers in the contracted MultiPlan network.
MultiPlan is the country's largest third-party network, and Cigna
contracts with it to access providers. According to the lawsuit,
which was initially filed in June 2022, Cigna reimbursed for claims
from providers in MultiPlan's network at its non-participating
providers' rate rather than at the rate expected for a MultiPlan
contract.
"The insurer significantly underpaid claims, and put patients at
risk of balance billing," the plaintiffs claim.
"It also breached its fiduciary duties, including its duty to honor
written plan terms and its duty of loyalty, because its conduct
serves Cigna's own economic self-interest and elevates Cigna's
interests above the interests of plan member patients," according
to the lawsuit.
Cigna had not returned a request for comment on the lawsuit at the
time of publication.
In addition to AMA, two state medical societies -- the Medical
Society of New Jersey and the Washington State Medical Association
-- joined the suit. In a statement, AMA President Jack Resneck Jr.
said that Cigna "has allowed the insurer's economic self-interest
to be prioritized ahead of their promises to physicians in the
MultiPlan Network and their patients."
"The AMA and other physician organizations allege that Cigna's
misconduct is riddled with conflicts of interest and manipulations
that routinely shortchanged payments to MultiPlan Network
physicians and interfered with the patient-physician relationship
by ignoring the MultiPlan contracts and making incorrect statements
to patients about their liability for the unpaid portion of the
billed charges, and by joining Stewart v. Cigna as a plaintiff, the
AMA hopes to shed light on Cigna's misconduct and create remedies
so that patients and physicians can look forward to getting what
they are promised," Resneck said. [GN]
DIGNITY HEALTH: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Van Bebber Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT VAN BEBBER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiffs v. DIGNITY
HEALTH d/b/a MERCY MEDICAL CENTER - MERCED, and DOES 1 to 100,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00264-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale
A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California denies the motion for partial summary judgment filed on
behalf of Dignity Health.
The lawsuit is a wage and hour class action suit stemming from
various alleged state labor law violations by Dignity Health, an
acute care hospital in Merced, California. Plaintiffs Robert Van
Bebber, Martha Ochoa, and Rachel Clover are former Dignity Health
employees who were employed by defendant for at least some of the
class period, which covers the period from July 13, 2013 to Sept.
8, 2021, the date of the class certification order.
Throughout the class period, the Defendant employed a rounding
policy pursuant to which all employee timeclock entries were
rounded either up or down to the nearest quarter-hour. Except for
one entry that demonstrated a 65-minute rounding window, no
individual employee time entry was rounded by more than seven
minutes either up or down. The Defendant's tardiness policy,
however, is based on the actual timeclock entry and not the
rounding of timeclock entries. The Defendant requires employees to
start each shift on time, and has a strict policy prohibiting
overtime unless the employee has previously obtained approval. The
class affected by its rounding policy consists of at least 2,215
hourly non-exempt employees.
The Defendant's expert, Scott Sternberg, analyzed timeclock records
for a random sample of 197 class members, including the three
plaintiffs, for the period between July 13, 2013 to July 31, 2020
(the start of the proposed class period to when data was collected
for production to the Plaintiffs). In that sampling, he found there
to be 1,299,049.50 total rounded hours and 1,302,424.83 total
actual hours, resulting in a "net difference in favor of the
Defendant of 3,375.33 hours," or 0.26% of the total rounded hours.
The sample employees worked 143,636 shifts during the period
analyzed. Expert Sternberg noted that averaging the total lost
hours across the total number of shifts over that same time frame
resulted in an average of 1.41 minutes lost per shift per employee
due to rounding.
The Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Brian Kriegler, noted that not all time
on the clock is subject to rounding. Rather, the Defendant's
rounding policy only impacts the times that employees clock in or
out at the start and end of their shifts and for meal periods. As
such, only 28 minutes of a typical work day is subject to rounding.
According to the Plaintiffs, averaging the minutes lost across the
minutes subject to rounding in the sample analyzed resulted in an
average of 5.94 minutes lost per 28 minutes subject to rounding per
shift, or a net difference of 21.2% in favor of defendant.
Analyzing a random sampling of data from 199 class members, the
Plaintiffs' expert noted that not all of the time lost to rounding
is equal—some of the lost minutes in the Defendant's favor was
time that, if counted, would have been subject to overtime or
double time due to the length of the employee's shift. Dr. Krieger
calculated the net difference between rounded time and actual time
to be 3,760.62 hours which, when accounting for the difference in
overtime and double time, equals to 6,712.76 hours of "straight
time" pay (base rate of pay prior to overtime premiums). In this
random sample, he found that 77.4% of employees experienced
undercompensated work time due to the rounding policy resulting in
fewer paid rounded hours than actual hours worked. When accounting
for overtime premiums, he calculated that 80.9% of employees were
underpaid with an average difference in earnings of $1,459.62 per
person.
Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs have asserted the following
causes of action in their second amended complaint: (1) violations
of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200; (2)
unpaid wages and penalties pursuant to California Labor Code
Sections 218, 226, 510, 511, 1194, and 1998 (i.e. overtime); (3)
failure to pay all wages due to illegal rounding; (4) failure to
provide meal breaks; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements pursuant to California Labor Code Section 226; (6)
violations of the Private Attorneys General Act (California Labor
Code Section 2698-2699); (7) failure to provide rest periods; and
(8) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees.
On Aug. 26, 2020, the Defendant filed the pending motion seeking
partial summary judgment in its favor as to the Plaintiffs' third
cause of action for failure to pay all wages based upon alleged
illegal rounding. On Sept. 22, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the Defendant's motion and a request for judicial
notice. The Defendant filed its reply thereto and objections to the
Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice on Sept. 28, 2020.
While the Defendant's motion for summary judgment was pending, the
Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class on Sept. 4, 2020.
After the motion was fully briefed, Judge Drozd issued an order on
Sept. 8, 2021, adopting the magistrate judge's findings and
recommendations granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
In relevant part, the order certified the following class and
sub-class related to the rounding claim at issue in the pending
motion for partial summary judgment:
a. All non-exempt hourly employees of Defendant who worked at
least one (1) day at the Mercy Medical Center Merced facility from
July 13, 2013 to the date of the class certification order and who
were paid pursuant to Defendant's rounding policy and practice
(Rounding Class);
b. All non-exempt hourly clinical employees of Defendant who
worked at least one (1) day at the Mercy Medical Center Merced
facility from July 13, 2013 to the date of the class certification
order and who were paid pursuant to Defendant's rounding policy and
practice (Rounding Clinical Sub-Class).
The matter is before the Court on Dignity Health's motion for
partial summary judgment. Pursuant to General Order No. 617
addressing the public health emergency posed by the COVID-19
pandemic, the Defendant's motion was taken under submission on the
papers.
The Plaintiffs filed a request for judicial notice in support of
their opposition to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
They seek judicial notice of the following: (1) the declaration
binder, exhibit binder, and notice of lodging deposition excerpts
filed in support of their motion for class certification; (2) a law
review article written by Elizabeth C. Tippett entitled "How
Employers Profit From Digital Wage Theft Under The FLSA;" (3) a law
review article written by Elizabeth C. Tippett, et al. entitled
"When Timekeeping Software Undermines Compliance;" (4) a copy of
the 2002 Update of the DLSE Enforcement Policies and
Interpretations Manual (Revised) Sections 47.1-47.2 ("DSLE
Enforcement Manual"); and (5) a copy of the California Civil
Courtroom Handbook and Desktop Reference, Section 8:37 (2018).
The Defendant filed objections to the Plaintiffs' request for
judicial notice, arguing that the two Tippett law review articles
are subject to reasonable dispute and are therefore outside the
scope of judicial notice.
Judge Drozd holds that the Defendant's arguments as to the Tippett
articles are clearly correct and persuasive. Law review articles
are not "facts for which judicial notice is proper." The
Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice will be denied as to both
law review articles authored by Elizabeth C. Tippet.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently laid a
foundation as to the authoritative nature of the California Civil
Courtroom Handbook and Desktop Reference. Therefore, Judge Drozd
exercises discretion and declines to take judicial notice of the
cited treatise. Of course, he considers citation to the treatise as
supporting authority in analyzing the parties' arguments. The DSLE
Enforcement Manual also is a "public record properly the subject of
judicial notice." Therefore, Judge Drozd takes judicial notice of
only the DSLE Enforcement Manual.
Dignity Health seeks summary judgment in its favor on the
Plaintiff's third cause of action for failure to pay all wages due
to illegal rounding because it maintains that its rounding policy
is valid as a matter of law. It asserts that "there can be no
dispute that its rounding practice is neutral on its face." The
Plaintiffs do not dispute that. It also contends that its "rounding
system is also neutral as applied" because, it contends, "overall
compensation was minimally affected by the practice." Its final
argument is that its rounding policy is neutral as applied because
"the difference between rounded and unrounded timeclock entries for
a sampling of proposed class members was approximately 3,375 hours
in the Defendant's favor, which is a mere 0.26% of the
approximately 1.3 million total hours in the sample."
After reviewing the evidence presented on summary judgment by both
parties, Judge Drozd concludes that the Defendant has not
established that its rounding policy is neutral as applied as a
matter of law. Although it is undisputed that Dignity Health's
rounding policy is facially neutral, the Defendant has not shown
that its policy is sufficiently similar to other rounding policies
that courts have found to be neutral in application. Rather, the
evidence critical to that determination is disputed. As such, the
Defendant has not established that it is entitled to summary
judgment as to the Plaintiffs' third cause of action for failure to
pay all wages due to illegal rounding.
For all of the reasons he explained, Judge Drozd denies the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment in its entirety.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to now reassign the case to U.S.
District Judge Ana I. deAlba and the parties are advised that all
future filings in the case will bear the new case number of
1:19-cv-00264-ADA-EPG.
The parties are directed to contact Courtroom Deputy Mamie
Hernandez at (559) 499-5652, or MHernandez@caed.uscourts.gov,
within 14 days of service of the Order regarding the rescheduling
of the Final Pretrial Conference and Jury Trial.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3m7amc8a from Leagle.com.
DR. SQUATCH: Fleming Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling
------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Fleming, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dr. Squatch, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04842 (N.D. Ill.,
Sept. 8, 2022), seeks damages and an injunction to stop the
Defendant's false and misleading labeling and marketing practices
with regards to its cosmetics described as "natural," such as a
"Men's Natural Shampoo" under the Dr. Squatch brand ("Product").
Despite representation as natural, the Product contains numerous
non-natural ingredients. Decyl Glucoside is not natural because it
is made by chemical condensation with glucose polymers. Glycerin is
recognized by federal regulations as synthetic, and is a
factory-produced texturizer created by complex processing. The
Product contains other representations which are misleading.
Despite the front label statement of "Oat Protein, Jojoba Oil,
Honey," the amount of these ingredients is less than consumers
would expect. The Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher
prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct,
resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers. The
Product is sold for a price premium compared to other similar
products, no less than approximately $14.00 for 8 FL OZ, a higher
price than it would otherwise be sold for, absent the misleading
representations and omissions.
The Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product if she knew the
representations and omissions were false and misleading or would
have paid less for it. The Plaintiff chose between Defendant's
Product and products represented similarly, but which did not
misrepresent their attributes and/or components. The Plaintiff paid
more for the Product that she would have paid absent Defendant's
false and misleading statements and omissions, and the Product was
worth less, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product on one or more occasions.
Dr. Squatch, LLC manufactures, labels, and sells cosmetics
described as "natural," such as a "Men's Natural Shampoo" under the
Dr. Squatch brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
Great Neck NY 11021-3104
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Court Dismisses Souter's 2nd Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAUREN SOUTER, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE COMPANY;
EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE BRANDS, LLC; and EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-1486 TWR (BLM) (S.D. Cal.), Judge
Todd W. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California grants with prejudice the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiff initiated the putative class action against the
Defendants alleging misleading representations associated with
their antibacterial hand wipes, known as "Wet Ones," which she
purchased multiple times during the class period. She alleges that
the misleading representations violate California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), False Advertising Law ("FAL") and the
California Consumer Remedies Act ("CLRA"). The Plaintiff further
alleges breaches of express warranty and quasi-contract.
Two representations are at issue: (1) that the hand wipes kill
99.99 percent of germs (the "Efficacy Representations"); and (2)
that the hand wipes are "hypoallergenic" and "gentle" (the "Skin
Safety Representations"). The Plaintiff contends these
representations are false and misleading and would likely deceive
reasonable consumers. When buying the hand wipes, she alleges that
she relied on the Efficacy and Skin Safety Representations on the
product label. Had she known the truth, she claims, she would not
have purchased the hand wipes or would have purchased them on
different terms.
The Plaintiff filed her initial Complaint on July 31, 2020. On Oct.
6, 2020, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint
on five grounds: (1) lack of constitutional and statutory standing,
(2) failure to satisfy the heightened pleading standard under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), (3) failure to satisfy the
reasonable consumer test, (4) primary jurisdiction, and (5)
preemption. On June 7, 2021, the Court granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss with leave to amend because the Plaintiff failed
to satisfy the reasonable consumer test.
The Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint on July 7, 2021. On
Aug. 6, 2021, the Defendants moved to dismiss on the same five
grounds. On Feb. 16, 2022, the Court granted the Defendants' motion
to dismiss with leave to amend because the Plaintiff, again, did
not satisfy the reasonable consumer test.
The Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint on March
18, 2022. On April 8, 2022, the Defendants filed the instant
motion. They moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on four
grounds: (1) lack of constitutional and statutory standing; (2)
failure to satisfy the reasonable consumer test; (3) preemption;
and (4) primary jurisdiction. They also maintain that the
Plaintiff's claim for equitable relief should be dismissed.
As to the reasonable consumer test under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA,
Judge Robinson explains that the reasonable consumer test requires
a probability that a "significant portion of the general consuming
public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the
circumstances, could be misled." At the pleading stage, courts have
dismissed cases under the reasonable consumer test only in select
circumstances, particularly where the "alleged violations of the
UCL, FAL, and CLRA are simply not plausible." If common sense would
not lead anyone to be misled, then the claim may be disposed of at
a motion to dismiss stage.
Judge Robinson again finds that the Plaintiff has not sufficiently
pled facts to satisfy the reasonable consumer standard as to the
Defendants' Efficacy Representations. He says her Second Amended
Complaint largely mirrors her First Amended Complaint -- with some
additional facts relating to the efficacy of the Defendants'
product, namely, when it is applied to hands and in combating
diseases spread by one's hands.
The Plaintiff's allegations that the Defendants' Efficacy
Representations are misleading and false, is two pronged: (1) Wet
Ones are ineffective under real-world conditions, and (2) Wet Ones
do not kill numerous common germs that are transmissible by hands.
Judge Robinson holds that the Plaintiff has failed to adequately
plead either that Wet Ones are ineffective in real world
conditions, or that the Defendants' Efficacy Representations are
overestimated because they are based on "optimal" laboratory
conditions. He also holds that the Court did not ask the Plaintiff
to provide the complex thought process of a consumer, but to
provide facts to support her claim that a reasonable consumer would
be misled by the Defendants' Efficacy Representations. The
Plaintiff has failed to do so and has therefore failed to
sufficiently to state a claim for which relief could be provided.
For these reasons, the Defendants' Motion is granted and the
Plaintiff's claims regarding the Defendants' Efficacy
Representations for failure to satisfy the reasonable consumer test
are dismissed with prejudice.
With respect to the Skin Safety Representations, the Plaintiff
again asserts in the SAC that because Wet Ones contain skin
allergens, the representation that the product is hypoallergenic is
false.
The Plaintiff's argument is conclusory, and she fails to allege
facts which support that a reasonable consumer, after reading that
the product is "hypoallergenic," would assume that Wet Ones has no
potential allergens. Judge Conley holds that her allegations in the
SAC fail to focus on how a reasonable consumer would interpret the
"hypoallergenic" labeling as it relates to the effect of the
product rather than the chemical composition of the product, i.e.,
whether Wet Ones are more or less likely to cause an allergic
reaction, regardless of the actual composition of ingredients.
Based on several definitions of Hypoallergenic, in order to find
that the Defendants deceptively used the term, the Plaintiff must
allege she suffered an allergic reaction after using the product or
that Wet Ones has a higher likelihood of causing a reaction as
compared to similar products on the market. She does not allege
either. The Plaintiff therefore failed to sufficiently allege that
Defendants' use of the term "hypoallergenic" is false or misleading
to the reasonable consumer.
Therefore, Judge Robinson grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
and dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims related to
Defendants' Skin Safety Representation for failure to satisfy the
reasonable consumer test.
The Plaintiff's claim fails as to the Efficacy Representations
because the Defendants never promised that the hand wipes would
kill 99.99 percent of all germs, as she suggests, or even those
specifically identified in the Second Amended Complaint. Thus, no
express warranty was breached. The Plaintiff's claims regarding the
Skin Safety Representations also fail. The Defendants'
"hypoallergenic" representation is not false or misleading; thus,
no express warranty was breached. Judge Robinson grants the
Defendants' Motion and dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiff's
breach of express warranty claim.
Finally, the Plaintiff's claim for quasi-contract also fails as to
both the Efficacy and Skin Safety Representations. A quasi-contract
claim typically involves a plaintiff seeking the return of a
benefit that a defendant unjustly gained through "mistake, fraud,
coercion, or request." In the case, no mistake, fraud, coercion, or
request has been shown as to either the Defendants' Efficacy
Representations or their Skin Safety Representations. Judge
Robinson thus grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and
dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiff's quasi contract claim.
Because the Plaintiff's claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA do not
pass the reasonable consumer test and this is her third iteration
of her complaint, Judge Robinson grants the Defendants' Motion and
dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiff's first through third causes
of action. Further, in this third iteration of her complaint, the
Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that the Defendants breached
an express warranty or committed a fraudulent act to establish a
quasi-contract. Judge Robinson therefore grants the Defendant's
Motion and dismisses with prejudice the remaining state law
claims.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8mck87 from Leagle.com.
ELECTROMED INC: To Submit Bid to Settle Class Suit Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Electromed Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Annual Report for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 23, 2022, that the Company expects to
submit in the near future a motion to settle the data
breach-related class action lawsuit filed in Minnesota.
On September 8, 2021, a state court putative class action lawsuit
was filed in Minnesota against the Company asserting injury
resulting from the previously announced data breach that impacted
the Company's customer protected health information and employee
personal information and seeking compensatory damages, equitable
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.
On October 6, 2021, the proceeding was removed to the District of
Minnesota. The Company believes the plaintiff was not injured as a
result of the data privacy incident, and, as a result, the claims
are without merit.
Accordingly, on November 11, 2021, the Company moved to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety. Prior to the hearing on the motion to
dismiss, the parties agreed in principal to settle the case.
The parties are continuing to negotiate the settlement agreement
and expect to submit a motion to settle the class action in the
near future. If the parties are unable to agree to the settlement
terms or, if the Court does not grant the motion for settlement,
the Company will continue to vigorously defend the lawsuit;
however, at this time, the Company is unable to determine the
ultimate outcome or potential exposure to loss, if any.
Electromed Inc. is based in Minnesota, and develops, manufactures
and markets innovative airway clearance products.
FCA US: Agrees to Settle Class Action Over Defective Minivans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Car Complaints Website Writer David A. Wood posted that a Chrysler
Pacifica class action lawsuit settlement has been reached for
2017-2021 Pacifica minivans equipped with 3.6-liter V6 engines and
9-speed automatic transmissions.
The Chrysler minivans are allegedly at risk of losing power or
stalling without warning.
The Chrysler Pacifica class action lawsuit was originally filed on
December 30, 2017, and entitled, Wildin et al. v. FCA US LLC, but
in October 2018 the lawsuit was retitled, Moran et al. v. FCA US
LLC.
The class action lawsuit alleges the Chrysler Pacifica engines
stall due to a loss of engine timing and crankshaft position
synchronization. The plaintiffs also allege transmission defects
cause the minivans to suddenly lose power.
According to the Pacifica class action lawsuit, Fiat Chrysler (FCA)
issued a recall in January 2018 to repair the Pacificas. But the
two plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit allege the recall was nothing
more than a repackaged software patch that has been available since
August 2017 (T23 update).
Additionally, the class action asserts Pacifica engines continue to
stall even after the vehicles have allegedly been fixed.
Class action documents claim Chrysler knew or should have known
about the Pacifica problems since at least March 2016, and
dealerships allegedly either deny the problem or perform repairs
that only mask the symptoms.
In August 2017, FCA issued "Customer Satisfaction Notification T23
EGR Valve Function" and "TSB 08-069-07 PCM Reprogram." The repair
updated the powertrain control module software because Pacifica
owners complained about engine malfunction lights.
In a motion to dismiss the Pacifica lawsuit, FCA argued the TSB had
nothing to do with alleged stalling problems.
When Chrysler recalled the Pacificas, owners were told their
minivans didn't need repairs if the minivans already had the T23
software updates.
The two plaintiffs argue Chrysler should stop its deception and
stop selling or leasing the Pacifica minivans and give customers
"all or part of the ill-gotten profits it received from the sale or
lease of its Class Vehicles."
In addition, the plaintiffs say FCA should, "remove, repair, and/or
replace the Class Vehicles' with the suitable alternative
product(s) that do not contain the defects alleged herein."
Chrysler Pacifica Class Action Lawsuit Settlement
Prior to the Pacifica settlement, the crankshaft position sensor
was covered by a 3-year/36,000-mile warranty, but the warranty for
the sensor will be extended to 5 years or 60,000 miles. However,
the 5 years or 60,000 miles are from the date the Pacifica minivan
was purchased or leased.
This means the "extended warranty" may expire for some owners
before the settlement is even approved.
FCA agreed to reimburse Chrysler Pacifica customers when the TSB
and recall were announced, but the settlement says minivan
customers can be reimbursed for repairs to the crankshaft position
sensors.
However, reimbursement is only available if the customer purchased
or leased a Pacifica more than five years before the effective date
of the settlement and before the minivan reached 60,000 miles.
According to the Chrysler Pacifica class action lawsuit settlement,
customers must submit proof of ownership and claim forms within 180
days of the effective date of the settlement.
All future repairs must use a replacement crankshaft position
sensor with part number 68079375AD or a later version.
The settlement also says a Pacifica customer may file a claim to
have the stalling minivan repurchased by Fiat Chrysler.
Chrysler Pacifica settlement agreement mentioned that: "This
Settlement provides an expedited, binding Arbitration to determine
whether FCA US should repurchase or replace your Class Vehicle.
Your eligibility for repurchase or replacement, however, may depend
upon your state’s lemon law."
According to the proposed Chrysler Pacifica class action
settlement, the two plaintiffs who sued will receive $10,000 each,
and their attorneys will receive $835,000.
The Chrysler Pacifica class action lawsuit settlement final
approval hearing will be February 15, 2023.
Chrysler Pacifica owners with settlement questions should visit
PacificaStallingSettlement.com.
The Chrysler Pacifica class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California: Moran et
al. v. FCA US LLC.
The plaintiffs are represented by Capstone Law APC.[GN]
FEDEX GROUND: Odea Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Odea, and those similarly situated persons v. FEDEX GROUND
PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 220900569 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia Cty., Sept. 8, 2022), is brought against Defendant for
failure to pay all wages owed, whether minimum wages or overtime
wages, for unpaid pre-shift and/or post shift security and/or bag
screening in violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and
liquidated damages in the amount of $500 per employee, for unpaid
late wages due but not paid within 30 days of the regularly
scheduled payday in violation of Pennsylvania's wage payment and
collection law.
The Defendant required the Plaintiff and Class Members to regularly
perform compensable work off-the-clock for which they did not
receive any compensation. Instead of paying Plaintiff and the Class
Members for all compensable hours, including their pre- and/or
post-shift security and/or bag checks, Defendant routinely required
Plaintiff and Class Members to be present on their premises for
these checks which constituted compensable time.
Even though during the statutory period applicable to their claims
the Defendant regularly and consistently required Plaintiff and
Class Members to undergo pre and post-shift security and bag
checks, Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and Class Members
for such time. The Defendant regularly failed to pay the Plaintiff
and Class Members for all compensable hours in violation of the
PMWA and failed to pay the Plaintiff and Overtime Class Members for
all overtime hours worked at the applicable overtime rates for each
and every hour worked over 40 hours in a given workweek, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for FedEx as a package handler.
FedEx, has been an American multinational conglomerate holding
company focused on transportation, e-commerce, and, which regularly
conducts business in the City of Philadelphia, Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Breen, Esq.
THE ROTHENBERG LAW FIRM LLP
Rothenberg Center
1420 Walnut Street, 2nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (215) 732-7000
Email: dbreen@injurylawyer.com
FIRST TEAM: Court Enters Final Judgment in Lalli Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PARAMJIT LALLI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST TEAM REAL
ESTATE-ORANGE COUNTY, a California Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
8:20-cv-00027-JWH-ADS (C.D. Cal.), Judge John W. Holcomb of the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California enters
Final Judgment.
Pursuant to the Order Granting Motion for Service Award and Class
Counsel Fees and Expenses and Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement entered substantially contemporaneously with the
Judgment, and in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, Judge Holcomb approves proposed settlement as
reflected in the Settlement Agreement.
The following Settlement Class is certified: All persons in the
United States who from four years prior to the filing of this
action through preliminary approval (1) one or more of First Team's
realtors called or texted, (2)(a) on their cellular telephone
numbers using Vulcan7 and/or RedX, and/or (b) on their cellular or
landline telephone numbers using a prerecorded voice message, (3)
whose phone numbers First Team's realtors obtained from Vulcan7
and/or RedX, and (4) who are identified in the Vulcan7 call logs
and/or RedX call logs that have been produced in the action.
Plaintiff Paramjit Lalli is appointed as the representative of the
settlement class. Lalli is awarded $5,000 as a service award for
serving as class representative. The Class Counsel is awarded
attorneys' fees in the amount of $143,550 and the reimbursement of
litigation expenses in the amount of $47,582.69.
The payment of attorneys' fees and the reimbursement of expenses to
the Class Counsel and the service award in the Action are directed
be made from the Settlement Fund, and the Released Parties as
described in the Settlement Agreement will have no liability or
responsibility for the payment of the Class Counsel's attorneys'
fees or expenses and the service award. The Released Parties' only
and total liability is the Settlement Fund.
The Settlement Agreement is approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate as to, and in the best interests of, Settlement Class
Members; the Parties and their counsel are directed to implement
and consummate the Agreement according to its terms and provisions;
and the Agreement is declared to be binding on, and to have
preclusive effect on, all pending and future lawsuits or other
proceedings maintained by or on behalf of Representative Plaintiff
and the Releasing Parties.
Judge Holcomb directed the Parties to implement and to consummate
the Agreement, including taking all actions required under the
terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement.
All persons who are Settlement Class Members are bound by the Final
Judgment and are enjoined from instituting, maintaining,
prosecuting, or enforcing, either directly or indirectly, any
claims discharged by the Settlement Agreement.
The Court will retain continuing jurisdiction over the action as to
the following matters: the enforcement of the terms of the
Settlement Agreement; issues relating to settlement administration;
and the enforcement of this Judgment and any order relating to
attorneys' fees or class representative award.
Other than potential post-judgment remedies, to the extent that any
party requests any other form of relief, such request is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4pajebas from Leagle.com.
FLORIDA: Tries to Delay Potential Class Suit for Medicaid Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Miami Team published that Florida is trying to fend off a
potential class-action lawsuit alleging that the Medicaid program
is denying coverage for incontinence supplies in violation of laws
such as the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Attorneys for the state filed documents in federal court in
Jacksonville disputing that two named plaintiffs had legal standing
to pursue the case and arguing that it should not be considered a
class action.
The lawsuit, filed in July 2022, said the Medicaid program stopped
providing incontinence supplies to plaintiffs Blanca Meza and
Destiny Belanger after they turned 21, though they are incontinent
and unable to care for themselves. It alleges the state is
violating federal Medicaid law and laws including the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
But in a document filed to answer the complaint, attorneys for the
state argued, in part, that the women did not have legal standing
because they "have not been exposed to an unreasonable and serious
risk of unnecessary institutionalization."
Also, the attorneys wrote that the state Medicaid program operates
under regulations approved by the federal Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services.
"Defendant (the state) has a comprehensive, effectively working
plan for providing qualified individuals with necessary services to
prevent unnecessary institutionalization. Alternatively, any relief
the court deems necessary should be limited to narrowly address the
harm before it and not unnecessarily affect the defendant's
otherwise comprehensive, effectively working plan for the delivery
of Medicaid services that have been reviewed and approved by CMS
(the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services)." the document
said.
The lawsuit said the state provides incontinence supplies, such as
briefs, diapers, and underpads, for Medicaid beneficiaries under
age 21 and for certain adults, including people in nursing homes
and people in what is known as Medicaid home- and community-based
services "waiver" programs.
But that coverage does not apply to Meza, a Duval County resident,
and Belanger, a St. Johns County resident. As an example of their
disabilities, the lawsuit said Meza "is diagnosed with spastic
quadriplegic cerebral palsy, muscle spasticity, neuromuscular
scoliosis, and partial epilepsy."
"Plaintiffs are medically fragile adults each with bladder and
bowel incontinence. As low-income Florida residents with
significant disabilities, they receive their health services
through Florida's Medicaid program. Plaintiffs' physicians have
prescribed certain incontinence supplies, including briefs and
underpads, as medically necessary to treat plaintiffs'
incontinence, keep their skin dry and clean, prevent skin
breakdowns and infections and maintain their ability to live in the
community." said the lawsuit, which also includes the advocacy
organization Disability Rights Florida as a plaintiff.
The lawsuit names defendant Simone Marstiller, the secretary of the
Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, which operates the
massive Medicaid program. The plaintiffs also are seeking a
preliminary injunction.
A judge in 2010 ordered the state to provide incontinence briefs to
Medicaid beneficiaries under age 21, the lawsuit said.
Medicaid also provides incontinence supplies for adults in nursing
facilities; adults with AIDS and a history of "AIDS-related
opportunistic infection;" and adults enrolled in the state's
long-term care and iBudget waiver programs, according to documents
in the case. The iBudget program, for instance, serves people with
developmental disabilities.
But the lawsuit, filed by attorneys for the Florida Health Justice
Project and Disability Rights Florida, said the waiver programs
have long waiting lists, and Meza and Belanger receive care in
their families’ homes. The lawsuit said Meza's family faces $188
a month in costs, while Belanger's family faces $200 a month in
costs.
In addition to disputing underlying arguments in the lawsuit,
attorneys for the state last week also contended that the case
should not move forward as a class action on behalf of a broad
number of Medicaid beneficiaries.
"Here, the alleged commonality of the proposed class and typicality
of the named plaintiffs must fail because neither the named
plaintiffs nor the proposed class suffers the same harms that
depend on the resolution of a common contention," wrote by Erik
Figlio and Alexandra Akre, the state's attorneys. [GN]
GALLERY M. INC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gallery M. Inc. The
case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Gallery M. Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07677 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gallery M -- https://www.gallerym.com/ -- is a premier fine art
gallery representing international, contemporary fine art,
photography,sculpture & new media.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
GUARISCO FINE ARTS: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guarisco Fine Arts.
The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Guarisco Fine Arts, Case No.
1:22-cv-07678-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Guarisco Gallery -- https://guariscogallery.com/ -- is one of the
largest and leading fine art galleries worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Unsafe Jail Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Clare Fonstein, writing for Houston Chronicle, reports that Houston
A federal lawsuit has been filed against Harris County and the
Harris County Sheriff's Office by the mother of a 98-pound special
needs teen beaten to death in the Harris County jail in October
2021.
Fred Harris, 19, was killed by 240-pound, repeat violent offender
Michael Paul Ownby, according to officials.
Harris and Ownby were put in the same holding cell without
appropriate oversight, according to the mother's legal complaint.
The complaint, filed by his mother, Dallas Garcia, alleges Harris
County and the Harris County Sheriff's Office failed and refused to
accommodate Harris' disability. It also claims they failed to
provide protection, safe housing and safe movement in the jail.
"Harris County knowingly created an extremely dangerous jail,"
family and civil rights lawyer Randall Kallinen said in a news
release. The Harris County Jail is operated by the Harris County
Sheriff's Office.
Garcia continues to suffer physical, mental and psychological
damages.
Harris died in the county jail weeks after detention officers and
deputies filed a federal class action lawsuit in September of 2021,
saying they were understaffed to the point that unhygienic measures
had to be taken because they couldn't get a bathroom break.
Additionally, a 2021 state inspection revealed Harris County Jail
is understaffed, according to Kallinen's news release.
Harris was in the jail after being arrested and charged with
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
No one was injured in the incident. According to the plaintiff's
complaint, it is unlikely Harris would have been convicted. He had
never been arrested before this incident.
He had spent years struggling with depression, anxiety and had
threatened suicide. He had continuous incidents of running away
from home.
Harris graduated from Stafford High School in 2020, and is said to
have been very well liked by his peers, even being elected as
homecoming royalty.
Dallas Garcia described her son as a sweet, outgoing boy who never
met a stranger and had garnered the nickname "Fearless Fred."
Ownby has been charged with aggravated assault causing serious
bodily injury. [GN]
INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE: Moore Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Linda Moore, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated insureds v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company,
Neptune Flood Incorporated, and Peninsula Insurance Bureau, Inc.,
Case No. 22-C-14 was removed from the Wayne County Circuit, to the
U.S. District Court for Southern District of West Virginia on Sept.
8, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00385 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
Indian Harbor Insurance Company operates as an insurance
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony E. Nortz, Esq.
Brent K. Kesner, Esq.
Ernest G. Hentschel , II, Esq.
KESNER & KESNER
P. O. Box 2587
112 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301-25329
Phone: (304) 345-5200
Fax: (304) 345-5265
Email: anortz@kesnerlaw.com
bkesner@kesnerlaw.com
ehentschel@kkblaw.net
- and -
Kenneth P. Hicks, Esq.
KENNETH P. HICKS, LC
742 Fourth Avenue
Huntington, WV 25701
Phone: (304) 525-3201
Fax: (304) 525-4700
Email: khicks1748@aol.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew A. Nelson, Esq.
Michael P. Markins, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
707 Virginia Street East, Suite 1400
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: (304) 553-0129
Fax: (304) 932-0265
Email: matt.nelson@lewisbrisbois.com
michael.markins@lewisbrisbois.com
ISLAND PURSUIT: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Island Pursuit, Inc.
The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Island Pursuit, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07667 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Island Pursuit, Inc. -- https://islandpursuit.com/ -- was founded
in 1981. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of
women's ready-to-wear clothing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
J M SMUCKER: Faces Class Suits Over Folgers Coffee and Jif Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The JM Smucker Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 23, 2022, that the Company is a
defendant in putative class action lawsuits filed over alleged
false number of servings found in the package labels of Folgers
coffee products, as well as the alleged presence of salmonella in
their Jif peanut butter products.
The Company said they are also defendants in a series of putative
class action lawsuits that were originally filed in federal courts
in California, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, New York, Texas,
Washington, and Washington D.C., but have been transferred to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The plaintiffs assert claims
arising under various state laws for false advertising, consumer
protection, deceptive and unfair trade practices, and similar
statutes. Their claims are premised on allegations that the Company
has misrepresented the number of servings that can be made from
various canisters of Folgers coffee on the packaging for those
products.
The Company is also a defendant in five putative class action
lawsuits as a result of its voluntary recall of select Jif peanut
butter products. The plaintiffs assert causes of action for
negligence, breach of warranties, fraudulent concealment, unjust
enrichment, and, in some of the lawsuits, violations of state
consumer protection and deceptive trade practices laws. Their
claims are premised on allegations that the Company engaged in
business practices designed to mislead the public regarding the
safety of Jif peanut butter for human consumption due to the
alleged presence of salmonella.
The Company said, "The outcome and the financial impact of these
cases, if any, cannot be predicted at this time. Accordingly, no
loss contingency has been recorded for these matters as of July 31,
2022, and the likelihood of loss is not considered probable or
estimable. However, if we are required to pay significant damages,
our business and financial results could be adversely impacted, and
sales of those products could suffer not only in these locations
but elsewhere."
The J. M. Smucker Company, also known as Smucker, is an American
manufacturer of food and beverage products. Headquartered in
Orrville, Ohio, the company was founded in 1897 as a maker of apple
butter. J.M. Smucker currently has three major business units:
consumer foods, pet foods, and coffee.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Agrees to Settle Pelvic Mesh Suits for $204M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ricky Zipp reports through MedtechDive that Johnson & Johnson has
agreed to settle two pelvic mesh cases in Australia for AU$300
million (about $203.7 million), according to the Australian firm
Shine Lawyers, which represented the applicants.
Shine Lawyers announced Sunday that it came to the agreement with
J&J and its subsidiary Ethicon in two class action lawsuits
alleging that patients suffered injuries after being implanted with
pelvic mesh products.
"The complications which can result from the implants include
erosion of the mesh into surrounding organs, chronic pain, painful
sexual intercourse, and incontinence," the firm said in the
release.
The agreement still needs to be approved by the Federal Court of
Australia. If the court approves of the agreement, it will be the
largest settlement in a product liability class action in
Australia's history, according to Shine.
Nine Gynecare implant products were included in the proceedings.
"Ethicon empathizes with all women who experience medical
complications related to pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary
incontinence. These are extremely complex medical conditions and
Ethicon has strived to support the availability of treatment
options for women with these conditions. With the Federal Court
approval pending, we are pleased to reach a settlement that
provides certainty and a path forward for eligible Australian
patients," a J&J spokesperson said in an emailed statement.
The company did not confirm the settlement amount.
The deal settles two class action lawsuits in one agreement. The
first lawsuit was filed in October 2012, went to court between July
2017 to February 2018, and was decided in the plaintiffs' favor in
November 2019. J&J's attempts to appeal failed, with the High Court
of Australia rejecting the company's request to appeal in November
2021.
The second lawsuit was filed in April 2021 on behalf of patients
who received implants on or after July 4, 2017, and was not allowed
to be part of the first-class action suit, Shine stated.
The settlement is another loss for J&J in pelvic mesh cases. In
April 2022, a California appeals court ordered J&J to pay $302
million for deceptive marketing of pelvic mesh implants. The
three-judge panel upheld a lower court's ruling that Ethicon
omitted or minimized the risk of using the devices in its
instructions for the products and marketing to doctors and
patients.
J&J also agreed to pay $117 million in 2019 to settle an
investigation across 41 states and the District of Columbia
alleging the company used deceptive marketing practices for
transvaginal surgical mesh products.
Injuries from mesh products have been the center of numerous
lawsuits across the medical device industry. Most recently, Becton
Dickinson was ordered to pay $4.8 million in damages to a Hawaiian
patient who said he suffered severe injuries from hernia mesh
products made by the company's subsidiary C.R. Bard. [GN]
JSP LIFE AGENCY: De La Paz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Maria De La Paz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. JSP. LIFE AGENCY INC. D/B/A JSP HOME CARE SERVICES and
JOSE NICANOR RODRIGUEZ as an Individual, Case No. 1:22-cv-07620
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and The Family and Medical Leave
Act, to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wage and
overtime compensation, unpaid "Spread of Hours" premium, liquidated
damages equal to the sum of unpaid "Spread of Hours" premium and
unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the NY Wage Theft
Prevention Act, liquidated damages, expenses related to tools and
trade, prejudgment and post-judgement interest, and Attorney's fees
and costs.
The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA, NYLL, and FMLA by engaging in a
pattern and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, as well as
failing to provide the Plaintiff with vacation, personal days, and
sick days, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a Patient Care Aide and Home Health
Aide at JSP for the benefit of and at the direction by the
Defendant.
The Defendant JSP is a domestic business corporation organization
and existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ataur Raquib, Esq.
SIM & DEPAOLA, LLP
4240 Bell Blvd 405
Bayside, NY, 11361
JUMPER MAYBACH: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jumper Maybach LLC.
The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Jumper Maybach LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-07594 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 6, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Jumper Maybach -- https://jumpermaybach.com/ -- offers apparel &
accessories for audacious humans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
KANGA CARE: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kanga Care, LLC. The
case is styled as Christopher Loadholt, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Kanga Care, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-07595 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 6, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kanga Care -- https://www.kangacare.com/ -- is one of the leading
manufacturers for modern style cloth diapers on the market
today.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
KENTUCKY BRANDED: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kentucky Branded,
LLC. The case is styled as Valerie Dicks, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Kentucky Branded, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-07648 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kentucky Branded -- https://kentuckybranded.com/ -- offer one of a
kind KY state, Makers Mark, and KSR apparel, mugs, hats and
Merchandise for men, women and children.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
KEYSTONE DOOR: Brodeur Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keystone Door &
Building Supply Inc., et al. The case is styled as Mathew Todd
Brodeur, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Keystone Door & Building Supply Inc., Does 1-20, Case
No. 34- 34-2022-00326387-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., Sept. 7, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Keystone Door & Building -- http://www.keystonedoor.com/-- is a
manufacturer and distributor of doors and building materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM
9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: 949-379-6250
KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Gamboa Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA GAMBOA on her own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KISS
NUTRACEUTICALS, KISS INDUSTRIES, LLC, COLE EVANS and GRANT DEAN,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01141-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:
1. Conditionally certify this case to proceed as a
"collective action" under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and
define the class as:
"All hourly employees who worked on or after May 9, 2019
who were not paid overtime wages for overtime hours
worked";
2. Approve the Notice and Consent to Join form;
3. Directing the Plaintiff to deliver the Notice and Consent
to Join form to all potential collective action members
via first-class U.S. Mail;
4. Directing the Defendants to post the Notice and Consent to
Join form, in English and in Spanish, in conspicuous
places in their place of business for a period of 60 days;
5. Directing the Defendants to include a copy of the Notice
and Consent to Join form, in English and Spanish, in two
consecutive pay envelopes of all putative collective
action members currently employed by Defendants;
6. Directing the Defendants to produce the names, addresses
and dates of employment of all potential class members
within 14 days of the Court’s order so that Plaintiff may
disseminate the Notice and Consent to Join form in a
timely fashion; and
7. Directing the putative class members shall have 60 days
from the date Plaintiff disseminates the Notice in which
to opt-in to the action.
Kiss Nutraceuticals provides packaging solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 1,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RHIgIl
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandt Milstein, Esq.
MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC
2400 Broadway, Suite B
Boulder, CO 80304
Telephone: (303) 440-8780
E-mail: brandt@milsteinturner.com
KOHL'S CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
Posted on Bakersfield website, Globe Newswire, Inc. said that
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Kohl's Corporation ("Kohl's"
or the "Company") (NYSE: KSS) and certain of its officers, on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased, or otherwise
acquired Kohl's securities between October 20, 2020, and May 19,
2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/kss.
This class action seeks to recover damages against the Defendants
for alleged violations of the federal securities laws.
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:
(1) Kohl's Strategic Plan was not well tailored to achieving the
Company's stated goals;
(2) the Defendants had likewise overstated the Company's success in
executing its Strategic Plan;
(3) Kohl's had deficient disclosure controls and procedures,
internal control over financial reporting, and corporate governance
mechanisms;
(4) 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;
(5) all the foregoing, once revealed, were likely to have a
material negative impact on Kohl's financial condition and
reputation; and
(6) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If any investors
wish to review a copy of the Complaint, they can visit the firm's
site: www.bgandg.com/kss or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
or his Law Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If any
investors suffered a loss in Kohl's, they have until November 1,
2022, to request that the Court appoint any of the investors as the
lead plaintiff. Their ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require them to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC represents investors in
securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits.
The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for
investors nationwide, attorney advertising, and prior results do
not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com
KORENS USA: Class Settlement in Taunton FLSA Suit Wins Prelim. Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LANDON TAUNTON, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. KORENS USA, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-844-ECM (M.D. Ala.), Chief District
Judge Emily C. Marks of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama, Eastern Division, grants the parties' joint
motion for conditional certification, preliminary approval of
collective action settlement, and distribution of notice.
Mr. Taunton brings the action against Defendants Korens USA, Inc.
and One Solutions, LLC, for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. ("FLSA"). He alleges, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, that the Defendants did
not pay all overtime bonuses earned for work performed over forty
hours per week. He seeks compensatory damages, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees, and costs.
The parties now jointly move the Court to conditionally certify the
proposed collective action; to preliminarily approve their executed
settlement agreement, proposed notice and consent forms, and the
method of distribution; and to appoint Courtney Lowery and Sanford
Law Firm, PLLC, as class counsel.
Based on the complaint and the parties' presentation, there are
five potential op-in plaintiffs, in addition to the named
Plaintiff, who were welders employed at the Korens plant in the
three-year period when they allegedly withheld overtime bonuses. At
this stage, all members of the proposed collective action appear to
be similarly situated to the named Plaintiff.
Judge Marks finds, therefore, that the potential plaintiffs satisfy
the "fairly lenient standard" to warrant "notice and the
opportunity to 'opt-in'" at the first stage of Section 216(b)
certification. Accordingly, the motion for conditional
certification of a collective action is granted.
The following class is conditionally certified: All hourly-paid
welders who worked at the Korens plant and earned a performance
bonus in connection with work performed in any week in which they
worked more than forty hours between Dec. 27, 2018, and Dec. 27,
2021.
To approve a proposed settlement, the Court must be satisfied that
it represents "a fair and reasonable resulution of a bona fide
dispute over FLSA provisions." The settlement formula provides the
Plaintiff and the potential opt-in plaintiffs with 100% of their
damages, calculated from unpaid wages plus liquidated damages. The
agreement itemizes the distribution to the Plaintiff and the five
potential opt-in plaintiffs according to this formula. Based on the
parties' presentation, the settlement amount appears to be fair and
reasonable.
The settlement agreement calls for creation of a common fund of
$10,710.26, out of which all claims and attorney's fees and costs
will be paid. Of this fund, $2,210.27 is allocated to the
settlement fund, out of which each plaintiff will receive an award
equal to their maximum damages. The remainder of the common fund
($8,500) is allocated for reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The
parties represent that attorney's fees were negotiated as an amount
separate from the Plaintiffs' recovery, which was calculated prior
to settlement negotiations. As a result of these negotiations, the
parties agreed on a recovery of 100% of the Plaintiff's and the
opt-in plaintiffs' damages.
In view of these negotiations and "the compensation that the
Plaintiffs will receive from the settlement after payment of
attorney's fees pursuant to each settlement agreement," Judge Marks
concludes that the attorney's fees and costs are fair and
reasonable.
The settlement agreement contemplates that the Plaintiff and the
opt-in plaintiffs will release the Defendants from "known and
unknown" claims that "reasonably arise out of the acts alleged in
the Action, which include all wage and hour claims under the FLSA
and similar state and municipal laws governing lost wages that were
asserted or could have been asserted between Dec. 27, 2018 and Dec.
27, 2021." It explicitly preserves the Plaintiffs' rights to bring
any other claim against the Defendants unrelated to the unpaid
overtime wages.
Judge Marks holds that courts have declined to preliminarily
approve proposed settlements that require "releases that extend
beyond FLSA claims, absent assurance that any plaintiff or opt-in
plaintiff seeking advice and counsel regarding such a release, the
claims they may be releasing, and their value, will receive it."
This settlement, however, expressly limits the release to those
claims which could have been brought for the acts that gave rise to
the FLSA action. She is therefore satisfied that the release
provision and all other provisions, are "fair and reasonable."
Upon consideration of the motion, and for good cause, Judge Marks
grants the joint motion for conditional certification, preliminary
approval of collective action settlement, and distribution of
notice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yn2es46f from
Leagle.com.
LA GRANDE BOUCHERIE: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed La Grande Boucherie, LLC. The
case is styled as Miriam Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. La Grande Boucherie, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-07612 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
La Grande Boucherie -- https://boucherie.nyc/ -- is a polished
French restaurant in an expansive art nouveau–style space with an
elegant heated atrium.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 11 Lead Plaintiff Due
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of LifeStance Health Group, Inc.
(NASDAQ: LFST) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with LifeStance Health's June 2021
initial public offering (the "IPO"), of the important
October 11, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased LifeStance Health securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the Registration Statement you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the LifeStance Health class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8073 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 11, 2022.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class
action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was
Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the IPO Registration
Statement featured false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the number of virtual visits clients were
undertaking utilizing LifeStance Health was decreasing as the
COVID-19 lockdowns were being lifted, thereby flatlining LifeStance
Health's out-patient/virtual revenue growth; (2) the percentage of
in-person visits clients were undertaking utilizing LifeStance
Health was increasing as the COVID-19 lockdowns were being lifted,
thereby causing LifeStance Health's operating expenses to increase
substantially; (3) LifeStance Health had lost a large number of
physicians due to burn-out and, as a result, its physician
retention rate had fallen significantly below the 87% highlighted
in the IPO's registration statement and LifeStance Health had been
expending additional costs to onboard new physicians who were less
productive than the outgoing physicians they were replacing; and
(4) as a result, LifeStance Health's business metrics and financial
prospects were not as strong as the IPO's registration statement
represented. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the LifeStance Health class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8073 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
LINCARE HOLDINGS: Morris Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Morris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LINCARE HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02048-CEH-AAS
(M.D. Fla., Sept. 6, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act
as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messaging.
To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
text messaging, including to individuals who have registered their
telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, and to
those who have not provided Defendant with their prior express
written consent as required by the FTSA. The Defendant also engages
in telemarketing without the requisite policies and procedures and
training required under the TCPA and its implementing regulations.
The Defendant's telephonic sales calls have caused the Plaintiff
and the Class members harm, including violations of their statutory
rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of
their privacy, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Clay County, Florida.
The Defendant is a Florida corporation and a "telephone
solicitor."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: 305-610-5223
Email: rachel@dapeer.com
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954.400.4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
LISA-MARIE'S: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lisa-Marie's Made in
Maine, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Lisa-Marie's Made in Maine,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07583 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 6, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lisa-Marie's Made in Maine, Inc. --
https://lisamariesmadeinmaine.com/ -- is a gift shop in Portland,
Maine.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
LOUISIANA: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of McZeal v. OGB, State
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Alfred McZeal; Lenora Wilson; Warren Wilson,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. State of Louisiana; Office of Group
Benefits; Louisiana Office of Debt Recovery; Charlotte Hawkins;
Mark E. Falcon, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-30631 (5th Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirms the
district court's order dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction
and for failure to state a claim.
Ms. Wilson, on behalf of a putative class, sued the State of
Louisiana and other defendants in federal court alleging they
unlawfully attempted to collect a debt from her and other similarly
situated individuals. Wilson previously worked for the State and
received state health insurance. In 2015, she instructed the
Louisiana Office of Group Benefits ("OGB") to deduct her health
insurance premiums directly from her state retirement benefits. Due
to an error, OGB never deducted the premiums. OGB did not discover
the error for four years, causing Wilson's owed balance --
unbeknownst to her -- to balloon to $3,918.59.
After discovering the error in 2019, OGB sent Wilson a letter
disclosing the mistake and seeking collection of her total unpaid
balance. OGB sent Wilson two additional letters before eventually
referring the matter to the Louisiana Office of Debt Recovery
("ODR"). ODR then attempted to collect the outstanding balance from
Wilson. Due to another error, ODR sent Wilson forty identical
collection notices, all dated June 19, 2019, providing final notice
of the outstanding premiums owed.
Ms. Wilson alleges that the State, OGB, ODR, and two individual
state employees, Charlotte Hawkins and Mark Falcon (collectively,
"Appellees"), unlawfully harassed and attempted to extort money
from her and other similarly situated individuals. She filed her
complaint in federal court on behalf of a putative class, asserting
a menagerie of federal and state claims.
In response, the Appellees first moved to dismiss under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), contending the Eleventh Amendment
barred Wilson's claims. Adopting the magistrate judge's report, the
district court partially granted the motion and dismissed all
claims against the State, OGB, and ODR. Only two classes of claims
remained: (1) federal and state law claims against the state
employees in their individual capacities, and (2) federal law
claims against the state employees in their official capacities for
declaratory or injunctive relief.
The Appellees answered the complaint and moved for judgment on the
pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The
magistrate judge recommended granting the motion to dismiss the
federal claims as insufficiently pleaded or legally deficient, and
also recommended declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state
law claims. Agreeing with the magistrate, the district court
granted the Appellees' motion, dismissing Wilson's federal claims
with prejudice and her state law claims without prejudice. Wilson
timely appealed.
On appeal, Wilson's pro se brief argues the district court erred on
several grounds, namely by: (1) denying Wilson leave to amend her
complaint; (2) holding the Eleventh Amendment barred her claims
against OGB and ODR; (3) denying Wilson oral argument; (4) denying
Wilson's motion to strike Appellees' Rule 12(c) motion for judgment
on the pleadings; and (5) not ruling on class certification before
dismissing the case.
First, Wilson argues the district court erred by denying leave to
amend her complaint in response to Appellees' Rule 12(c) motion. On
appeal, she argues only that the district court should have
considered other factors besides futility.
The Fifth Circuit holds she is mistaken. Denying a motion to amend
is not an abuse of discretion if allowing an amendment would be
futile. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its
discretion.
Second, Wilson argues the district court erred in holding the
Eleventh Amendment bars her claims against OGB and ODR. The
Eleventh Amendment bars a state's citizens from filing suit against
the state or its agencies in federal courts," unless the immunity
has been validly waived by the state or abrogated by Congress.
The Fifth Circuit says Wilson offers no coherent argument why the
district court erred in finding that the Eleventh Amendment bars
her suit. She does not contest that OGB and ODR are state agencies.
She implies this does not matter because the agencies are "state
actors" for purposes of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. But it is well
established that Section 1983 did not abrogate states' Eleventh
Amendment immunity. Hence, the district court did not err.
Third, Wilson argues she was entitled to oral argument before the
district court ruled on the Appellees' motions. But Wilson
forfeited this issue by not raising it before the district court.
In any event, parties do not have the right to oral argument.
Fourth, Wilson argues the district court erred in denying her
motion to strike the Appellees' motion for judgment on the
pleadings, a ruling we review for abuse of discretion.
To the extent the Fifth Circuit comprehends Wilson's argument, she
appears to contend that the Appellees were "foreclosed" from
bringing a Rule 12(c) motion because "they had already filed an
Answer in the proceedings." This is backwards. A party may move for
judgment under Rule 12(c) "after the pleadings are closed but early
enough not to delay trial." Nothing suggests that the Appellees
violated this rule or that the district court otherwise abused its
discretion in denying the motion to strike.
Finally, Wilson argues that the district improperly dismissed her
case without first ruling on class certification.
Again, the Fifth Circuit holds that Wilson forfeited this argument
by failing to raise it before the district court. In any event,
where a putative class action may be halted by motion to dismiss or
motion for summary judgment, district courts may rule on the merits
before addressing class certification. Accordingly, the district
court did not abuse its discretion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mhzsamnv from Leagle.com.
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Sued Over Unlawful Interception of Communications
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Huber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-03571 (E.D.
Pa., Sept. 7, 2022), is brought under the Pennsylvania Wiretapping
and Electronic Surveillance Control Act stemming from the
Defendant's unlawful interception of Plaintiff's and Class members'
electronic communications through the use of "session replay"
spyware that allowed the Defendant to watch and record the
Plaintiff's and the Class members' visits to its website.
The Defendant utilized "session replay" spyware to intercept the
Plaintiff's and the Class members' electronic computer-to-computer
data communications with the Defendant's website, including how
they interacted with the website, their mouse movements and clicks,
keystrokes, search terms, information inputted into the website,
and pages and content viewed while visiting the website. Defendant
intercepted, stored, and recorded electronic communications
regarding the webpages visited by Plaintiff and the Class members,
as well as everything the Plaintiff and the Class members did on
those pages, e.g., what they searched for, what they looked at, the
information they inputted, and what they clicked on.
The Defendant intercepted the electronic communications at issue
without the knowledge or prior consent of the Plaintiff or the
Class members. The Defendant did so for its own financial gain and
in violation of the Plaintiff's and the Class members' substantive
legal privacy rights under the WESCA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff most recently visited Defendant's website on or about
August 2022.
The Defendant owns and operates the following website:
www.lowes.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (732) 695-3282
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
Email: Ari@marcuszelman.com
MEDTRONIC PLC: Trustees of Welfare Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Trustees of The Welfare and Pension Funds Of Local 464a –
Pension Fund, The Trustees Of The Local 464a United Food &
Commercial Workers' Union Welfare Service Benefit Fund, And The
Trustees Of The New York-New Jersey Amalgamated Pension Plan For
Acme Employees, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MEDTRONIC PLC, OMAR ISHRAK, GEOFFREY S. MARTHA, KAREN
L. PARKHILL, and SEAN SALMON, Case No. 0:22-cv-02197 (D. Minn.,
Sept. 8, 2022), is brought on behalf of a class of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Medtronic common stock
between June 8, 2019, and May 25, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Among its products is the MiniMed insulin pump system for the
treatment of diabetes, including the MiniMed 600 series models and
the MiniMed 780G model. Medtronic is currently seeking regulatory
approval for the MiniMed 780G model, which uses an advanced hybrid
closed loop system. The Defendants repeatedly assured investors
that the MiniMed 780G model was "on track" for approval by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration and would provide the Company with the
edge it needed to close a growing gap with its competitors in the
diabetes market. The Defendants made these representations despite
known issues with the MiniMed 600 series models. Indeed, in
November 2019, the Company issued a warning that certain MiniMed
600 series insulin pumps might have damaged pump retainer rings,
which could cause the system to release too much insulin, and
instructed customers with damaged rings to contact the Company for
replacements. On February 7, 2020, the FDA classified Medtronic's
November 2019 notification as a Class I recall—the most serious
type of recall.
Investors began to learn the truth about the Company's MiniMed
operations on December 15, 2021, when Medtronic revealed that it
had received a warning letter from the FDA regarding its
Northridge, California facility. The Warning Letter followed an FDA
inspection relating to the Company's MiniMed 600 series recall, and
focused on "the inadequacy of specific medical device quality
system requirements in the areas of risk assessment, corrective and
preventive action, complaint handling, device recalls, and
reporting of adverse events." The Warning Letter further explained
that Medtronic had known about the MiniMed quality issues for
several years before the Company finally initiated the recall, and
that it failed to appropriately respond to complaints and report
safety issues.
As a result of the Warning Letter, Medtronic lowered its guidance
for its Diabetes Group, now projecting that Diabetes Group product
revenues would decline in the mid-single digits range for fiscal
year 2022. On this news, the price of Medtronic common stock
declined $6.75 per share, or approximately 6%, from a close of
$111.69 per share on December 14, 2021, to close at $104.94 per
share on December 15, 2021.
The Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, about the
Company's business and operations. Specifically, Defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Medtronic's
product quality control systems were inadequate; (2) Medtronic had
failed to comply with numerous regulations regarding risk
assessment, corrective and preventive action, complaint handling,
device recalls, and reporting of adverse events; (3) these failures
increased the risk of regulatory investigation and action; (4) as a
result of the Company's misconduct, the FDA would delay the
approval of additional Medtronic MiniMed devices, including the
MiniMed 780G; (5) these delays in product approvals, as well as the
Company's need to improve its quality control systems, would
negatively affect the Company's financial performance and cause
Medtronic to fall further behind its competitors; and (6) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.
The Plaintiffs and other members of the Class have suffered
significant damages due to Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions,
and the resulting declines in the market value of the Company's
common stock when the truth was revealed, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased Medtronic common stock at artificially
inflated prices.
Medtronic is a medical device company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq.
Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
Phone: (612) 339-6900
Email: gmfishbein@locklaw.com
khriebel@locklaw.com
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
- and -
Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
Darren J. Check, Esq.
Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
Karissa J. Sauder, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: (610) 667-7706
Email: namjed@ktmc.com
dcheck@ktmc.com
rdegnan@ktmc.com
ksauder@ktmc.com
MEMORIAL HEALTH: $2.5MM Class Settlement in Myers Suit Has Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LYNNETT MYERS, et al., Plaintiffs v. MEMORIAL HEALTH
SYSTEM MARIETTA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants, Case No.
15-CV-2956 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Class and
Collective Action Settlement Approval and their unopposed Corrected
Motion for Attorneys' Fees.
Plaintiffs Lynnett Myers, Carol Butler, and Arva Lowther, on behalf
of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, initiated
the lawsuit by filing a collective and class action complaint with
the Court on Oct. 29, 2015. The Plaintiffs alleged that the
Defendant Memorial Area Healthcare d/b/a Memorial Health System
("Marietta") engaged in employment practices that violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 20 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio Revised Code Section
4111.01, et seq. Rhe Plaintiffs requested opt-in class
certification for FLSA violations under Section 216(b) of the FLSA,
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 opt-out class certification
for violations of their Ohio-law claim.
On May 20, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed their first Amended
Complaint, adding claims for unjust enrichment on behalf of the
entire Rule 23 class and violations of Ohio's Prompt Pay Act
(O.R.C. Section 4113.15(A)) on behalf of an Ohio subclass. The
Amended pleading also added Defendants Marietta Memorial Hospital,
and Selby General Hospital. The Court conditionally certified the
collective action under FLSA on Aug. 17, 2016.
On May 01, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint to fix a typographical error in the name of one of the
Defendants. The Court subsequently certified the Rule 23 Class on
Sept. 11, 2017.
On April 13, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended
Complaint, solely to add two individual Defendants who worked for
Memorial Health System: J. Scott Cantley, the CEO, and Eric Young,
the VP and CFO. And on Sept. 10, 2018, the Court granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Class Definition.
The parties participated in a Settlement Conference before the
Court on Sept. 2, 2021. Though they were unable to achieve a
settlement then, they did so three weeks later.
The Agreement seeks to resolve all FLSA and state-law wage claims
in the suit. Under the Agreement, the parties agree to settle the
case for $2.5 million, which includes deductions for attorney fees
amounting to $750,000 (30% of the settlement amount), litigation
expenses and costs of $174,613.87, $25,000 in administration costs,
and class representative awards totaling $45,000, leaving a maximum
net settlement fund of approximately $1,505,386 divided among 2,585
eligible participants. Individual allocation was based on a
multi-step damages analysis.
First, the Plaintiffs used the Defendant's timesheet data to
determine the number of eligible shifts worked by Class and
Collective members stemming from the Defendants' compensation
system under the FLSA and any applicable state law. Next, based on
that analysis, they sought to reimburse class members by paying
them a fixed amount for each shift that they: (i) worked during
their meal break; (ii) were subjected to an automatic meal
deduction; and (iii) did not cancel their meal deduction. The
amount per such applicable shift is $1.19. Upon making a claim, the
Plaintiffs verify the applicable number of shifts and pay each
claimant the per applicable shift amount.
Under the Agreement, any unused or unclaimed funds will be
reallocated as follows:
i. If after allocating the funds in the QSF [Qualified
Settlement Fund] to make payments there are funds remaining in the
QSF, the Claims Administrator will pay the balance of the QSF to
the Class Counsel as a full or partial payment of any attorney's
fees awarded by the Court. Any remaining funds will be returned to
the Defendants.
ii. Within 365 days of Effective Date, the Defendants will
deposit into the QSF Account the full award attorneys' fees to
Class Counsel as described in Section 3.2 to the extent the Class
Counsel has not already received full payment. As it stands, if the
FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs recover at the same average rate as the Rule
23 class members (around $681 per claimant), approximately $1.24
million of the $2.5 million will revert to the Defendant.
Consistent with the Court's Amended Preliminary Approval Order, the
Class Counsel mailed both the Hybrid and FLSA Notices of Settlement
on May 6, 2022. The Notices provided potential Settlement Class
Members information about the terms of the settlement, and informed
them about the allocation of attorney fees, and explained their
right to object or exclude themselves from settlement. They also
provided potential members information regarding the date, time,
and place of the Fairness hearing.
Over the 90-day claims period, the Claims Administrator performed
skip traces for alternative addresses, and re-mailed Notices of
Settlement to any potential Settlement Class Member whose Notice
was returned as undeliverable. Of the 209 undelivered Notices, the
Claims Administrator traced 183 notices and the Post Office
provided new addresses for 26. Of those Notices, the Claims
Administrator re-mailed 196 and the Post Office forwarded 11. As of
Aug. 23, 2022, 20 were ultimately deemed undeliverable. At the
close of the claim period, 146 opted in to the FLSA Collective. Of
the 2,585 eligible Rule 23 Settlement Class Members, no one
requested exclusion from the Settlement (100% class inclusion). The
Class Counsel have received no objections to the proposed
Agreement.
The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Final Class and Collective Action Settlement Approval, the
Plaintiffs' unopposed Corrected Motion for Attorneys' Fees, and the
Aug. 23, 2022, Fairness hearing concerning the same.
First, Judge Marbley opines that the Agreement resolves a bona fide
dispute under the FLSA. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
violated the FLSA by failing to pay fully for work performed,
including proper overtime wages. Additionally, the parties have
litigated the case for the better part of seven years which has
included briefing on dispositive motions, class certification, and
Daubert. The parties also point to the Settlement Conference
mediated by the Court as additional evidence that this agreement
was negotiated at arm's length and absent collusion.
Second, the Settlement Notice "fairly apprised the prospective
members of the class of the terms of the proposed settlement so
that class members could come to their own conclusions about
whether the settlement serves their interests." The Notice
"explained its purpose, discussed the nature of the pending suit
and proposed class and accurately summarized the settlement
agreement." At the Fairness hearing, the Class Counsel averred that
approximately 20 of the 2,585 eligible class members were not
notified -- representing a notice rate of approximately 99.2%.
Judge Marbley finds that the Notice was sufficient.
Third, Judge Marbley finds that the proposed settlement is fair,
adequate, and reasonable, because the Agreement is not the result
of fraud or collusion, the Agreement is the result of arm's-length
mediation overseen initially by the Court, the Plaintiffs are aware
of the risk inherent in all litigation, the Court has no reason to
question the sworn statements, the reaction of potential class
members supports approval, the public policy generally supports
settlement of class-action lawsuits, and the distribution is fair
and equitable because the Class Members will receive payouts
directly related to the amount of time they worked for the
Defendants and how much actual unpaid overtime or off-the-clock
time they incurred.
Fourth, Judge Marbley holds that each Class Member will receive an
amount of compensation proportional to the number of shifts they
worked and were not fully compensated, society's stake in awarding
attorneys who bring these wage-violation cases supports an award of
attorney fees, the Class Counsel took the case on contingency,
devoting almost 4,000 hours to the matter leading up to settlement,
it is a relatively complex case which was exacerbated by the
structure of the Agreement, and the Lead Class Counsel has amassed
vast experience in federal courts pursuing class and
collective-action litigation. Judge Marbley awards 30% of the fund,
for a total of $750,000, which represents a lodestar multiplier of
0.42.
Fifth, Judge Marbley awards the Class Counsel's $174,613.87 request
for out-of-pocket costs incurred in litigation because those costs
were necessary to litigate the case. He further awards the Class
Counsel's $25,000 request for reimbursement of funds associated
with settlement administration.
Finally, Judge Marbley approves the $45,000 to be paid equally to
the three Named Plaintiffs: $15,000 each to Lynnett Myers, Carol
Butler, and Arva Lowther. He says the Notice to potential class
members indicated this proposed award, and there were no
objections. The Defendants likewise do not object to the requested
award.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Marbley grants the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Settlement Approval finding the settlement
fair, adequate and reasonable. He awards the Plaintiffs' attorney
fees amounting to $750,000, litigation expenses and costs of
$174,613.87, administration costs of $25,000, and class
representative awards totaling $45,000. The difference between the
requested amount in attorney fees ($833,333.33) and the amount
awarded ($750,000) -- $83,333.33 -- will revert to the Plaintiffs
and will be paid on an applicable shift basis. Notwithstanding the
order of payment set forth in the Settlement Agreement, FLSA
Collective and Rule 23 Class members will be paid first. Judge
Marble dismisses the case and the Court will retain jurisdiction to
enforce the Settlement Agreement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5bkr6dnt from Leagle.com.
MGH GOURMET: Galdamez Sues Over Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Yessenia L. Sarmiento Galdamez, an individual, on her own behalf
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MGH GOURMET,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 22STCV29129 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 7,
2022),is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide the
Plaintiff with rest periods and meal periods; failure to provide
the Plaintiff with accurate itemized wage statements; and failure
to issue final paychecks timely to the Plaintiff in violation of
the Labor Code.
As a general rule, the Plaintiff was not permitted to take an
uninterrupted 10-minute rest break in the morning and an
uninterrupted 10-minute rest break in the afternoon, nor was the
Plaintiff permitted to take an uninterrupted 30-minute meal period
break for every 5 hours worked, or a second uninterrupted 30-minute
meal period break for every 10 hours worked. Throughout Plaintiff's
employment, the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with
itemized wage statements that properly and accurately itemized the
number of hours Plaintiff worked at the effective regular pay rates
and the effective overtime pay rates, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a packer starting in
July 2012 and ending May 6, 2021.
The Defendants owned and operated their businesses in the County of
Los Angeles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq.
Thomas H. Schelly, Esq.
LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC
880 Apollo St., Suite 336
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: (310) 322-2211
Fax: (310) 322-2252
MINISO GROUP: Faces Investors' Lawsuits Over Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Wong of the Marketing Interactive website wrote that Global
Chinese retailer MINISO has faced class-action lawsuits over
federal securities concerns filed by US investors, including
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and the Klein Law Firm. According
to the official statement of The Klein, the law firm has filed a
class action complaint on behalf of shareholders of MINISO Group,
alleging that the company violated federal securities laws.
The lawsuit is on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded MINISO securities pursuant or
traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus
issued in connection with MINISO's October 2020 initial public
offering.
The filed complaint alleges that MINISO Group made materially false
or misleading statements or failed to disclose that the defendants
and other undisclosed related parties owned and controlled a much
larger number of MINISO stores than previously stated.
According to the release, the law firm also said MINISO concealed
its true costs where the company did not represent its true
business model; the company and its chairman engaged in planned
unusual and unclear transactions. Therefore, the company is at risk
of breaching contracts with the People's Republic of China
authorities. The statement also said the defendant's statements
about the company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
Meanwhile, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has also released a
statement regarding the lawsuit, alleging that the IPO's
registration statement of MINISO was false and misleading. It
concluded that MINISO is at risk of breaching contracts with PRC
authorities and would imminently and drastically drop its franchise
fees.
Previously in July 2022, MINISO claimed that the short seller
report released by Blue Orca Capital recently was misleading, after
the investment firm alleged that MINISO lied about its core
business model.
According to MINISO's public announcement, the retailer said the
company believes the report is without merit and contains
misleading conclusions and interpretations regarding information
relating to the company. The company's board of directors,
including the audit committee, is reviewing the allegations and
considering the appropriate course of action to protect the
interests of all shareholders.
The board has decided to form an independent committee, consisting
of independent directors Xu Lili, Zhu Yonghua, and Wang Yongping,
to oversee an independent investigation regarding the allegations
made in the report at the recommendation of the management of the
company and in order to protect the interests of all shareholders.
The independent committee may retain independent professional
advisors to assist with the independent investigation when
appropriate.
On the other hand, MINISO has dominated headlines recently as it
apologized for presenting the company as a Japanese designer brand
in an earlier marketing strategy. The brand said that it will
complete the process of "de-japanizing" its stores and renovating
of decoration by March 2023. According to the official statement on
its Weibo account released on 18 August, MINISO said from 2015 to
2018, when the company was in the early stages of its
globalization, it recruited Japanese designer Miyake Junya as its
chief designer, which then resulted in promoting itself as a
'Japanese designer brand'.
The statement added that the company took the wrong direction in
brand positioning and marketing in the early stage of development.
As a result, the company has been de-japanizing its stores since
2019 by removing any Japanese designer branding elements and
upgrading the brand as a lifestyle gathering store. [GN]
MODA GROUP: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moda Group, LLC. The
case is styled as Valerie Dicks, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Moda Group, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-07653 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Moda Group -- https://modagrp.com/ -- strives to provide clients
with a white glove and five-star real estate experience.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
MOVE INC: Ganaway Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Personal Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chantele Ganaway, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MOVE, INC., d/b/a REALTOR.COM, Case No.
1:22-cv-04859 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 8, 2022), is brought against
Defendant for violations of the federal Video Privacy Protection
Act from Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing to a third
party, Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Facebook"), data containing the
Plaintiff's and other digital-subscribers Class Members' (i)
personally identifiable information or Facebook ID ("FID") and (ii)
the computer file containing video and its corresponding URL viewed
("Video Media") (collectively, "Personal Viewing Information").
This is a consumer digital privacy class action complaint against
Move, Inc., as the owner of Realtor.com, for violating the VPPA by
disclosing its digital subscribers' identities and Video Media to
Facebook without the proper consent. The VPPA prohibits "video tape
service providers," such as Realtor.com, from knowingly disclosing
consumers' personally identifiable information, including
"information which identifies a person as having requested or
obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape
provider," without express consent in a stand-alone consent form.
The Facebook pixel is a code Defendant installed on Realtor.com
allowing it to collect users' data. More specifically, it tracks
when digital subscribers visit or enter Realtor.com and view Video
Media. Realtor.com tracks and discloses to Facebook the digital
subscribers' viewed Video Media, and most notably, the digital
subscribers' FID. This occurs even when the digital subscriber has
not shared (nor consented to share) such information. Importantly,
Defendant shares the Personal Viewing Information--i.e., digital
subscribers' unique FID and video content viewed--together as one
data point to Facebook. Because the digital subscriber's FID
uniquely identifies an individual's Facebook user account,
Facebook—or any other ordinary person—can use it to quickly and
easily locate, access, and view digital subscribers' corresponding
Facebook profile. Put simply, the pixel allows Facebook to know
what Video Media one of its users viewed on Realtor.com.
Thus, without telling its digital subscribers, Defendant profits
handsomely from its unauthorized disclosure of its digital
subscribers' Personal Viewing Information to Facebook. It does so
at the expense of its digital subscribers' privacy and their
statutory rights under the VPPA. Because Realtor.com digital
subscribers are not informed about this dissemination of their
Personal Viewing Information-- indeed, it is automatic and
invisible--they cannot exercise reasonable judgment to defend
themselves against the highly personal ways Realtor.com has used
and continues to use data it has about them to make money for
itself.
The Defendant chose to disregard Plaintiff's and hundreds of
thousands of other Realtor.com digital subscribers' statutorily
protected privacy rights by releasing their sensitive data to
Facebook. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action for
legal and equitable remedies to redress and put a stop to the
Defendant's practices of intentionally disclosing its digital
subscribers' Personal Viewing Information to Facebook in knowing
violation of VPPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff began a digital subscription to Realtor.com in 2010
and continues to maintain the subscription to this day.
Move, Inc. is a private corporation headquartered in Santa Clara,
California, and the owner of Realtor.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
Adam Florek, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Phone: 314-833-4825
Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com
plesko@peifferwolf.com
aflorek@peifferwolf
- and -
Patrick Muench, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
318 W. Adams St., Ste. 1512
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312.500.8680
Email: pmuench@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: 202.494.3531
Email: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com
MUSTANG PLUMBING: Smith Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Smith, individually and for others similarly situated v.
MUSTANG PLUMBING, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00893 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 6,
2022), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff regularly worked for the Defendant in excess of 40
hours each week. But the Defendant did not pay them overtime of at
least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek. Instead of paying overtime as
required by the FLSA, the Defendant improperly classified the
Plaintiff as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA.
This practice violates the overtime requirements of the FLSA.
The Defendant purported to pay Plaintiff a salary, but the
Plaintiff was not paid a guaranteed minimum salary. The Defendant
subjected the Plaintiff to improper salary deductions based on the
number of hours and days actually worked. The Defendant's decision
not to pay overtime compensation to the Plaintiff was neither
reasonable nor in good faith. Rather, the Defendant knowingly and
deliberately failed to compensate the Plaintiff overtime of at
least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for MPI as a CAD Technician from March 2020 to
October 2021.
MPI is a company engaged in providing plumbing installation and
service throughout Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Taylor Montgomery, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
tmontgomery@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
NABORS COMPLETION: Final Arbitration Award in Negrete Confirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATHEW NEGRETE, Petitioner v. NABORS COMPLETION &
PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., n/k/a C&J WELL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Respondent, Case No. 2:22-cv-03390-DDP-JPR (C.D.
Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California grants Negrete's Petition to Confirm
Final Arbitration Award and for Further Attorneys' Fees and Costs,
and to Enter Judgment Against Respondent Nabors Completion and
Production Services Co.
Negrete performed oil well plug and abandonment work for Nabors in
the Port of Long Beach, as part of a larger project to replace the
Gerald Desmond Bridge. On April 2, 2015, former Nabors employees
who performed similar work on the project filed a putative class
action in state court against Nabors for violations under the
California Labor Code, on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated employees, including Negrete.
Nabors removed the action to the Court, and thereafter filed a
motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the parties' arbitration
agreement. The Court denied the motion to compel arbitration.
Nabors appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit reversed
and remanded the Court's denial of the motion to compel
arbitration.
On March 30, 2018, Negrete submitted a Demand for Arbitration to
JAMS, asserting the following wage-and-hour violations: (1) failure
to pay prevailing wages (Cal. Lab. Code Sections 1194, 1771, 1772,
1774 et seq.); (2) waiting time penalties (Cal. Lab. Code Section
203); (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements
(Cal. Lab. Code Section 226(a)); and (4) unfair competition (Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200). Thereafter, Deborah Crandall
Saxe, Esq. was appointed as arbitrator.
Negrete filed a motion for summary adjudication pursuant to JAMS
Employment Rule 18. On April 5, 2021, the Arbitrator granted
Negrete's motion, ruling on the issues pertaining to Nabors'
liability. On Nov. 1, 2021, the matter proceeded to a virtual
arbitration hearing on damages. On Feb. 22, 2021, the Arbitrator
issued an Interim Arbitration Award.
Negrete then filed a motion to set the amount of attorney's fees
and costs with the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator accepted Negrete's
requested lodestar fees and awarded a 1.5 multiplier to the
lodestar. On May 4, 2022, she issued a Final Arbitration Award.
Through the Final Award, she incorporated the Court's previous
findings from the Interim Award, and awarded Negrete $68,081.61 in
damages, including statutory interesting continuing after Nov. 1,
2021, and continuing at $10.06 per day on the unpaid wages and
interest at the rate of 10% annum until all wages and interest
thereon are paid in full, $800 in statutory penalties under
California Labor Code Section 226(e), $214,436.10 in attorneys'
fees, and $2,448.25 in costs.
Negrete now moves to confirm the Final Arbitration Award and seeks
$10,329.50 in post-award attorneys' fees and $402 in costs for
filing of the initial complaint in this confirmation action.
Nabors contends that the Arbitrator exhibited a manifest disregard
of the law through several alleged errors with respect to Nabors'
liability and damages. Nabors, however, fails to identify any
instances in the record where the Arbitrator "recognized the
applicable law and then ignored it." The alleged errors are based
on misinterpretation or misapplication of the law -- such legal
errors are insufficient to vacate an Arbitration Award. "The risk
that arbitrators may construe the governing law imperfectly in the
course of delivering a decision that attempts in good faith to
interpret the relevant law, or may make errors with respect to the
evidence on which they base their rulings, is a risk that every
party to arbitration assumes, and such legal and factual errors lie
far outside the category of conduct embraced by Section 10(a)(4)."
Finding no manifest disregard of the law exhibited in the
Arbitration Award, Judge Pregerson declines to vacate the
Arbitration Award. He therefore grants Negrete's Petition to
confirm the Arbitration Award.
As the prevailing party in the action, Negrete is entitled to
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including fees incurred in
connection with the confirmation action. Thus, the only issue
before the Court is whether the requested fees and costs are
reasonable.
Negrete seeks $10,329.50 in attorneys' fees. Judge Pregerson finds,
and Nabors does not dispute, that the rates set forth by Negrete's
counsel are within the range of reasonable rates for attorneys in
the local community, taking into consideration the "experience,
skill, and reputation of the attorney." Specifically, he finds that
the following rates are reasonable: Richard E. Donahoo, Attorney -
$700/hour; R. Chase Donahoo, Attorney - $425/hour; Sarah L.
Kokonas, Attorney - $495/hour; and Kelsey Ung, Paralegal -
$295/hour.
With respect to the time spent for work performed on this matter,
Negrete's counsel has submitted detailed billing records of work
performed and an accompanying declaration. Negrete's motion and
Richard Donahoo's declaration estimate that counsel spent a total
of 14.7 hours on tasks related to the post-award confirmation
action. Of these hours, Negrete claims that 3.8 hours are
attributable to Richard Donahoo, 9.8 hours are attributable to R.
Chase Donahoo, 0.4 hours are attributable to Sarah Kokonas, 0.7
hours are attributable to Kelsey Ung, and 3.0 hours are
attributable to time Richard Donahoo anticipated he would spend
preparing a reply and anticipated judgment.
The Court has adjusted these hours for reasonableness.
Specifically, it has subtracted 0.8 hours from the amount of time
billed by R. Chase Donahoo in connection with preparing the
petition to confirm the arbitration award. It has also subtracted
1.2 hours from the amount of time billed by Richard Donahoo to
reflect the reduced amount of time reasonably required to revise or
supplement the moving papers.
Applying the approved rates to the adjusted hours, the lodestar
method yields the following result: Richard E. Donahoo - $700 for
5.6 hours - $3,920; R. Chase Donahoo $425 for 9 hours - $3,825;
Sarah Kokona $495 for 0.4 hour - $198; Kelsey Ung $295 for 0.7 hour
- $206.50. The total is $8,149.50. The adjustments reflect the
reasonable number of hours expended by the counsel in relation to
the confirmation action and request for post-award fees. Thus,
Negrete is entitled to $8,149.50 in fees and $402 for the cost of
filing the complaint.
For the reasons he stated, Judge Pregerson grants Negrete's
Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award. The Final JAMS
Arbitration Award issued by Arbitrator Deborah Crandall Saxe, Esq.
on May 4, 2022, in the Arbitration JAMS Case No. 1220058997, is
confirmed. The Court will enter judgment in favor of Mathew Negrete
and against Nabors in the amount of $68,081.61 in damages,
including statutory interest continuing after November 19, 2021,
and continuing at $22.97 per day on the unpaid wages and interest
at the rate of 10% per annum until paid; $800 in statutory
penalties under California Labor Code Section 226(e); $214,436.10
in attorneys' fees; and $2,448.25 in costs as awarded by the
Arbitrator.
Judge Pregerson further grants Negrete's request for post-award
attorneys' fees in the amount of $8,149.50 and for costs in the
amount of $402.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bddsxb7c from Leagle.com.
NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Grice Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Enterprise
Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Shannon Smith, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Enterprise
Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-03573-GAM (E.D. Pa., Sept. 7,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
National Enterprise Systems, Inc. (NES) -- https://www.nes1.com/ --
was established in 1987 by Ernest R. Pollak, as a full-service debt
collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Howard Bernstein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT H. BERNSTEIN, LLC
101 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 300
Roseland, NJ 07068
Fax: (203) 246-2887
Email: scott@scottbernsteinlaw.com
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Loses Bid to Appeal TRO in Homaidan Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, and NAVIENT CREDIT FINANCE
CORPORATION, Appellants v. HILAL K. HOMAIDAN and REEHAM YOUSSEF, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellee.
HILAL K. HOMAIDAN and REEHAM YOUSSEF, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Adversary Proceeding Plaintiffs, v.
SALLIE MAE, INC., NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, and NAVIENT CREDIT
FINANCE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 22-CV-4398(EK)
(E.D.N.Y.), Judge Eric Komitee of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York denies the Defendants' motion for
leave to appeal Judge Elizabeth Stong's recent decision granting a
temporary restraining order against them.
Appellees Hilal Homaidan and Reeham Youssef filed for Chapter 7
bankruptcy protection in 2008 and 2013, respectively; their debts
were subsequently discharged. Following that discharge, Homaidan
(and later Youssef) moved to reopen his Chapter 7 bankruptcy
proceeding and commenced an adversary proceeding as a putative
class action against Navient and other defendants.
In the adversary proceeding -- from which the putative appeal
emerges -- they seek a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and
damages arising from the Appellants' alleged violations of the
discharge injunctions provided by 11 U.S.C. Section 524(a)(2).
Generally speaking, the Appellees allege that the Appellants
continue to seek to collect private student-loan debts that were
discharged in bankruptcy. Those private loans were properly
discharged, Appellees contend, because they are not
nondischargeable "qualified education loans" as defined in 26
U.S.C. Section 221(d)(1) and 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(8)(B).
The Appellees moved for the TRO in April 2022. After briefing and
argument, the Bankruptcy Court entered a TRO on July 11, 2022. The
TRO, which became effective as of today, restrains Navient "from
taking any acts to collect on Tuition Answer Loans held by the
Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members, as the class is
described in the Amended Complaint, that exceed the cost of
attendance as defined by Internal Revenue Code Section 221(d), and
that have an outstanding balance subject to collection." The TRO
will expire on Sept. 20, 2022 unless it is extended by the
Bankruptcy Court for good cause or Navient consents to an
extension, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.
Navient timely sought leave for this appeal; the Appellees oppose
such leave. Navient also asked the Bankruptcy Court to stay the TRO
pending appeal; Judge Stong denied that motion on September 2. The
Appellees' motions for class certification, a preliminary
injunction, and summary judgment remain pending before the
Bankruptcy Court.
The parties disagree over whether Navient's appeal comes as a
matter of right or requires leave of the Court.
First, Navient argues that the nationwide scope of the TRO calls
its legality into substantial question. It cites decisions from
other circuits for the proposition that bankruptcy courts lack
authority to address out-of-district violations of their discharge
injunctions.
But leave to appeal is unwarranted, Judge Komitee says, because
Navient cannot satisfy the third requirement: that an immediate
decision in Navient's favor would "materially advance the ultimate
termination of the litigation." It has not demonstrated (or even
attempted to demonstrate, really) how the Court's review would
promote a speedy resolution of the case.
Next, Navient argues, without citing authority, that this third
prong of Section 1292(b) -- the "materially advance" requirement --
is not mandatory.
For the reasons he explained, Judge Komitee holds that it is
incorrect. Navient has not persuasively explained how its appeal
would satisfy this third prong, and understandably so: even if the
Court vacated the Bankruptcy Court's TRO, the litigation would
continue, including determination of the Appellees' pending motions
for class certification and summary judgment.
Finally, Navient acknowledges that there is "an interpretation" of
28 U.S.C. Section 158 that would require it to request leave to
appeal the TRO, but it urges an alternative interpretation that
permits appeal as of right.
Judge Komitee determines that Navient cites no binding authority
for this interpretation. Moreover, even on its own terms, its
"alternative interpretation" would allow "appeals of preliminary
injunctions as a matter of right," not TROs. Even this view,
however, is contested: some courts have rejected the view that
preliminary injunctions are appealable as of right in the
bankruptcy context.
For these reasons, Navient is denied leave to appeal the TRO. The
appeal is dismissed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mrn6rvbp from Leagle.com.
NEVADA DINER: Urgiles Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nevada Diner Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Edgar Eliseo Calle Urgiles, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Nevada Diner Inc.,
Dimitrios Kaloidis, Case No. 1:22-cv-05323 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 7,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Nevada Diner -- https://www.nevadadiner.com/ -- is a family-owned
and operated business since 1981 who takes pride in the
high-quality service, exceptional food, and family-friendly
environment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
NAYDENSKIY LAW FIRM, LLC
426 Main St., # 201
Spotswood, NJ 08884
Phone: (718) 808-2224
Email: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com
NORTHFIELD HOLDING: Campbell Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northfield Holding
Corp. The case is styled as Kyle Campbell, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northfield Holding Corp.
doing business as: Florida Window and Door, Case No.
1:22-cv-22834-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 6, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Northfield Holding Corp. doing business as Florida Window and Door
-- https://www.floridawindowanddoor.com/ -- install the highest
quality impact windows and doors tested to withstand the punishment
of the most severe hurricane conditions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
OVERBY-SEAWELL: Samsel Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Overby-Seawell
Company, et al. The case is styled as Mark Samsel, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Overby-Seawell
Company, KeyBank, N.A., Case No. 1:22-cv-03593-SDG (N.D. Ga., Sept.
6, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.
Lisa-Marie's Made in Maine, Inc. --
https://lisamariesmadeinmaine.com/ -- is a gift shop in Portland,
Maine.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jared William Connors, Esq.
Matthew Ryan Wilson
Michael Joseph Boyle, Jr.
MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
305 W. Nationwide Blvd.
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: (630) 224-6000
Email: jconnors@meyerwilson.com
mwilson@meyerwilson.com
mboyle@meyerwilson.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Fax: (608) 509-4423
Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
PARTS ID INC: Hasson Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PARTS iD, Inc. The
case is styled as Kenneth Hasson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PARTS iD, Inc., Case No.
2:22-cv-01291-RJC (W.D. Pa., Sept. 8, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
PARTS iD, Inc. -- https://www.partsidinc.com/ -- is a
technology-driven, digital commerce company focused on creating
custom infrastructure and unique user experiences within niche
markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
RAMON NAVA: Hernandez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Manuel De Jesus Alvarez Hernandez, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Ramon Nava, Individually and d/b/a
Southeast Pallet Co and Southeast Pallet, Inc., Case No.
4:22-cv-03038 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 8, 2022), is brought against the
Defendants to recover unpaid overtime that is required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants has a business plan that includes paying non-exempt
employees on a piece-rate basis and not paying the employees
overtime pay, no matter how many hours per week his employees work.
This payment plan thus includes not paying an overtime premium for
those hours over 40 per workweek. The Defendants' failure to pay
the overtime premium required by law allows him to gain an unfair
advantage over competitors who follow the law in their employment
practices, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a pallet maker from 2010
until August 16, 2022.
Ramon Nava is the sole shareholder/owner of Southeast Pallet, Inc.
and had and exercised the authority to hire and fire
employees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 10099
Houston, Texas 77206
Phone: 713-868-3388
Facsimile: 713-683-9940
Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
RAPID PLASTICS: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rapid Plastics, Inc.
The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Rapid Plastics, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07645 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Rapid Plastics, Inc. -- http://rapidplastic.com/-- is a plastic
fabrication company in New York City,.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
ROMAN CATHOLIC: Reaches Class Settlement in Sexual Abuse Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minky LLP shared that a proposed settlement has been reached
in a class action lawsuit against the Catholic Dioceses of Halifax
and Yarmouth on behalf of victims of sexual assault by Priests. The
action was certified as a class proceeding on March 31, 2020.
This class action alleges that the Roman Catholic Episcopal
Corporation of Halifax and the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation
of Yarmouth are legally liable for sexual abuse committed by their
Priests between April 14, 1954, and March 31, 2020. Both sides have
agreed to a settlement.
If the Settlement Agreement is approved by the Court, it will
provide a claims process through which eligible class members may
make a claim for compensation.
A settlement approval hearing will be held by the Court at the
Halifax Courthouse on November 14, 2022. At this hearing, the Court
will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in
the best interests of the Class, and whether to approve the
Settlement Agreement.
Compensation to Class Members is not yet available. If the Court
approves the settlement, class members can then make a claim for
compensation. [GN]
For further information:
https://kmlaw.ca/cases/catholic-priest-sexual-abuse-class-action/
1-833-630-1785
catholicabuseclassaction@kmlaw.ca.
SAINT FRANCIS HEALTH: Williams Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saint Francis Health
System, Inc. The case is styled as Kenna Williams, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Saint Francis Health
System, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-00390-GKF-CDL (N.D. Okla., Sept. 7,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Saint Francis Health System -- https://www.saintfrancis.com/ -- is
an integrated health system in Tulsa, Oklahoma, with an emphasis on
a complete continuum of care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hugh Michael Robert, Esq.
SHERWOOD, MCCORMICK & ROBERT
15 W. 6th St., Ste. 2800
Tulsa, OK 74119
Phone: (918) 592-1144
Fax: (918) 576-6907
Email: hugh@smr-law.com
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Simon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City and County of
San Francisco, et al. case is styled as Joshua Simon, David Barber,
Diana Block, Josue Bonilla, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. City and County of San Francisco, Paul
Miyamoto, in his official capacity as San Francisco Sheriff, Case
No. CGC22601686 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 8,
2022).
The case type is stated as "Civil Rights."
San Francisco -- https://sf.gov/ -- officially the City and County
of San Francisco, is a commercial and cultural center in Northern
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shilpi Agarwal, Esq.
ACLU OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
39 Drumm St.
San Francisco, CA 94111-4805
Email: sagarwal@aclunc.org
SEMA4 HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 7
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Sept. 11 disclosed that
purchasers or acquirers of Sema4 Holdings Corp. (NASDAQ: SMFR;
SMFRW) securities between March 14, 2022 and August 15, 2022, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period") have until November 7, 2022 to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff. The Sema4 class action lawsuit
-- captioned Helo v. Sema4 Holdings Corp., No. 22-cv-01131 (D.
Conn.) -- charges Sema4 and certain of its top executives with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Sema4 class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-sema4-holdings-corp-class-action-lawsuit-smfr.html
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Sema4 is a health company that uses artificial
intelligence to enable personalized medicine.
The Sema4 class action lawsuit alleges that defendants failed to
disclose that: (i) there was a significant risk that Sema4 would
reverse a material amount of previously recognized revenue that it
could not recoup from third-party payors; (ii) Sema4 was
experiencing declining selling prices for its reproductive health
segment; and (iii) thus, Sema4's financial results would be
adversely affected.
On August 15, 2022, Sema4 announced changes to its research and
development leadership team, including that Sema4's founder,
defendant Eric Schadt, was stepping down from his roles as
President and Chief Research & Development Officer. Sema4 also
disclosed that it was eliminating approximately 13% of its
workforce as part of a series of restructuring and corporate
realignments. During the related conference call, Sema4 further
revealed that it had "reversed $30.1 million of revenue this
quarter related to prior periods," in connection with negotiations
with "one of [Sema4's] larger commercial payors regarding the
potential recoupment of payments for Sema4 carrier screening
services rendered from 2018 to early 2022." On this news, Sema4's
stock price fell by more than 33%, damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
Sema4 securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the
greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative
class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A
lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Sema4 class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Sema4 class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the
Sema4 class action lawsuit.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for
investors last year alone - more than triple the amount recovered
by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices,
Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world
and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in
In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for
more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contacts:
J.C. Sanchez, Esq.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (800) 449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
SILVER AND PEWTER: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Silver and Pewter
Gifts, LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Silver and Pewter Gifts, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-07643 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Silver and Pewter Gifts -- https://www.silverandpewtergifts.com/ --
offers personalized and engraved silver gifts of sterling and
pewter for weddings, baby showers and other special occasions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
SMELLY PROOF: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smelly Proof, Inc.
The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Smelly Proof, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07647 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Smelly Proof -- https://smellyproof.com/ -- offers brand storage
bags and are the leader in food storage bags, blocking odors from
escaping.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Sauer Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cheryl Sauer, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SolarEdge Technologies, Inc., Does
1-10, Inclusive, Case No. CIV SB 2211712 was removed from the CA
Superior Court, County of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District
Court for Central District of California on Sept. 8, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-01584 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
SolarEdge -- https://www.solaredge.com/ -- is an Israeli company
that develops and sells solar inverters for photovoltaic arrays,
energy generation monitoring software, battery energy storage
products, as well as other related products and services to
residential, commercial and industrial customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defednants are represented by:
Matthew D Powers, Esq.
O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
Phone: (415) 984-8700
Fax: (415) 984-8701
Email: mpowers@omm.com
STAUNTON AREA: Faces Class Action Suit for Alleged BIPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Record Writer Andy Nghiem relayed that a class action
lawsuit alleges the employee fingerprint reader system used by
Staunton Area Ambulance Service violates the employees' privacy
under state law.
Plaintiff Gage Blevins filed a class action lawsuit in the Madison
County Circuit Court against Staunton Area Ambulance Service,
citing negligence and carelessness in violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).
According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff is a former employee of the
defendant. During his employment, Blevins was allegedly required to
use a fingerprint reader system to clock in and out of work.
The lawsuit states that BIPA requires that prior to collecting
biometric data including fingerprints, companies must inform
employees in writing that biometric data will be collected and
stored. It also states that employees must be informed in writing
of the specific purpose of why the biometric data is being
collected, how long it will be stored, and companies must receive a
written release from the employee for the collection of biometric
data.
The plaintiff alleges the defendant invades the privacy of its
employees by collecting and storing their fingerprints without
informed consent. According to Blevins, the defendant has been
requiring employees to use a fingerprint reader to clock in and out
of work for years. He claims the company never received a release
from him allowing them to collect his fingerprints, and he never
authorized the company to collect his fingerprints for this use.
Blevins is seeking monetary damages for himself and everyone in his
class action lawsuit, plus court costs, attorney fees and any other
relief the court deems proper. He is also requesting the court to
issue an order requiring the defendant to cease the collection of
biometric data without informed written consent.
The plaintiff is represented by the attorneys of Peiffer, Wolf,
Carr, Kane, Conway, & Wise, LLP in St. Louis.
Madison County Circuit
Court case number 2022LA001050 [GN]
STITCH FIX: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 25
--------------------------------------------------------------
PRNewswire provided NBC to publish that The Klein Law Firm
announces that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of
shareholders of Stitch Fix, Inc. (NASDAQ: SFIX) alleging that the
Company violated federal securities laws.
The lawsuit is on behalf of purchasers of Stitch Fix Class A common
stock between December 8, 2020, and March 8, 2022, inclusive.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 25, 2022
No obligation or cost to you.
Learn more about the recoverable losses in SFIX:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/stitch-fix-loss-submission-form?id=31577&from=4
Stitch Fix, Inc. NEWS - SFIX NEWS
CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint, Stitch
Fix made numerous false and misleading statements to investors
concerning the synergy between the Company's Fix and Freestyle
programs, and repeatedly denied claims that the Freestyle program
could cannibalize the Company's legacy Fix business. Specifically,
Stitch Fix repeatedly assured investors that the Company's
Freestyle business was "an additive experience and complementary"
to the Fix business, that "the combination of those two things will
allow us to address many more types of clients, and that "we see
solid growth in both sides of the business." In truth, Stitch Fix
concealed that these programs were not complementary or additive.
Stitch Fix knew that the Freestyle program would be much preferred
to the Company's original Fix model and that the Freestyle program
would inevitably cannibalize the Company's legacy Fix business.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If any shareholders have
suffered a loss in Stitch Fix that they have until October 25, 2022
to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Their ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that they serve as a lead
plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If shareholders purchased Stitch Fix securities
during the relevant period, they may be entitled to compensation
without payment of any out-of-pocket fees.
HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the SFIX lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click this link:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/stitch-fix-loss-submission-form?id=31577&from=4.
ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance,
and commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys
have achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus, attorney advertising and prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
535 Fifth Avenue
4th Floor
New York City, NY 10017
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
TEXAS A&M: Faces Class Suit for Race-Based Hiring Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Sibarium of The Washington Free Beacon covered the news that
the largest public university in the United States is reserving
faculty positions based on race and making six-figure bonuses
available exclusively to minorities, programs that are now the
subject of a class action lawsuit.
As part of a new initiative to attract "faculty of color," Texas
A&M University set aside $2 million in July to be spent on bonuses
for "hires from underrepresented minority groups," according to a
memo from the university's office of diversity. The max bonus is
$100,000, and eligible minority groups are defined by the
university to include "African Americans, Hispanic/Latino
Americans, Native Americans, Alaskan Natives, and Native
Hawaiians."
Another program, at the university's Mays Business School, reserves
certain slots on the faculty for the same minority groups, emails
between Texas A&M professors show.
These explosive revelations form the basis for a class action
complaint by the conservative nonprofit America First Legal. The
plaintiff, a University of Texas at Austin finance professor named
Richard Lowery, argues that the hiring programs violate three
different civil rights laws:
A. the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which prohibits race
discrimination in contracting;
B. Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits race
discrimination at federally funded universities; and
C. the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which bars
public universities from using racial preferences in nearly all
situations.
"University administrators think they can flout these federal
statutes with impunity because no one ever sues them over their
discriminatory faculty-hiring practices and the Department of
Education looks the other way," the lawsuit reads. Lowery is asking
a Texas district court to put an end to Texas A&M's programs and
appoint a court monitor to make sure that the diversity office
"does not aid or abet violations of the nation's civil rights
laws."
Such violations are increasing de rigueur in both academia and
corporate America. A faculty hiring plan at George Mason
University, announced in April 2021, drew criticism from law
professors over its apparent use of racial quotas, which are
illegal under federal law. Google, Pfizer, Microsoft, and IBM have
capped or outright excluded white and Asian applicants from
prestigious fellowships, while Amazon offers "Black, Latins, and
Native American entrepreneurs" a $10,000 stipend to launch their
own delivery startups -- a program that, like Texas A&M's
initiatives, is now the subject of a lawsuit.
Many of these programs seek to ensure that an institution's racial
balance reflects the demographics of the population. George Mason
said its hiring initiative would close "gaps" between the racial
composition of its students and the racial composition of its
professors. Texas A&M likewise touted its race-based bonus scheme
as a way to achieve demographic "parity" with the state of Texas.
Though public universities can use race as a "plus factor" in
admissions, it's not clear whether they can do so in faculty
hiring. Even if they can, the lawsuit argues, Supreme Court
precedent would still forbid the sort of outright quotas used by
Texas A&M.
"These discriminatory, illegal, and anti-meritocratic practices
have been egged on by woke ideologues who populate the so-called
diversity, equity, and inclusion offices at public and private
universities throughout the United States, the existence of these
offices is subverting meritocracy and encouraging wholesale
violations of civil-rights laws throughout our nation's university
system." Lowery's lawsuit says.
Laylan Copelin, the vice chancellor of marketing and communications
for Texas A&M, said the university system would "review the lawsuit
and take appropriate action as warranted." With more than 73,000
enrolled students, Texas A&M is the largest university in the
country. [GN]
TMP INTERNATIONAL: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TMP International,
LLC. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. TMP International, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-07669 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
TMP International -- https://tmpintl.com/ -- are suppliers of
quality branded promotional products and merchandise across
North-America and internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
TRACTOR SUPPLY: Higley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tractor Supply
Company, et al. The case is styled as Shelby L. Higley, on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Tractor Supply Company, Does
1–10, Case No. 34-2022-00326421-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Sept. 8, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
Tractor Supply Co. -- https://www.tractorsupply.com/ -- is the
source for farm supplies, pet and animal feed and supplies,
clothing, tools, fencing, and so much more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: 213-232-3128
Fax: 213-232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
TRI CITY TRANSPORT: Heichel Sues Over Failure to Pay Full Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Heichel, Rudy Castro, Justin Garmendia, Joshua Holgate and
Randi Pitts, each individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Tri City Transport, LLC, SWWOOP, LLC, and
Michael Butler, Case No. 2:22-cv-01513-SMM (D. Ariz., Sept. 8,
2022), is brought against Defendants for failure to pay full and
final wages due upon termination of their employment, and for
failure to pay sufficient minimum wages under Arizona state law in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs' work followed the usual path of employer-employee
relationships; the Defendants treated them as independent
contractors only for tax purposes and for the Defendants'
convenience. The Plaintiffs regularly or occasionally worked over
forty hours per week throughout their tenure with the Defendants.
The Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs or other Drivers 1.5 times
their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a week.
In some weeks, the Plaintiffs worked so many hours that their
constructive hourly rate fell below both the federal and state
statutory minimum. The Defendants made no reasonable efforts to
ascertain and comply with applicable law. The Defendant knew, or
showed reckless disregard for whether, the way it paid the
Plaintiffs violated the FLSA. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs
all wages due when the Plaintiffs' employments were terminated, nor
within 7 days thereafter, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Drivers within
the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint.
Tri City Transport, LLC ("TCT"), is a domestic limited liability
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Courtney Lowery, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AK 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Email: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com
TWITTER INC: Johnson Fistel Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of
Twitter, Inc. (NYSE: TWTR). The class action is on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise, acquired Twitter
securities between August 3, 2020 and August 23, 2022, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors are hereby notified that
they have until November 14, 2022, to move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff in this action.
What actions investors may take at this time? If any of them
suffered a loss and are interested in learning more about being a
lead plaintiff, they can contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com)
by email or phone at 619-814-4471. If emailing, a phone number is
requested.
To join the action, they can click or copy and paste the link below
in a browser:
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/twitter-twtr-class-action-security.
And there is no cost or obligation to you.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business operations and
prospects. Specifically:
-- Twitter knew about security concerns on their platform;
-- Twitter actively worked to hide the security concerns from the
board, the investing public, and regulators;
-- contrary to representations in SEC filings, Twitter did not take
steps to improve security;
-- Twitter's active refusal to address security issues increased
the risk of loss of public goodwill; and
-- as a result, Defendants' statements about Twitter's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Twitter 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 Twitter class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff.
For more information regarding the lead plaintiff process, please
refer to https://www.johnsonfistel.com/lead-plaintiff-deadlines.
About Johnson Fistel, LLP:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York, and Georgia. The
firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits.
Johnson Fistel seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations
of federal securities laws, and attorney advertising, and past
results do not guarantee future outcomes.
For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.
Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
Investor Relations
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
TWITTER INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 14 Lead Plaintiff Due
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Twitter, Inc. (NYSE: TWTR) between August 3, 2020,
and August 23, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Twitter investors under
federal securities laws.
To join the Twitter class action, investors can go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8303 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business operations and
prospects. Specifically that:
(1) Twitter knew about security concerns on their platform;
(2) Twitter actively worked to hide the security concerns from the
board, the investing public, and regulators;
(3) contrary to representations in SEC filings, Twitter did not
take steps to improve security;
(4) Twitter's active refusal to address security issues increased
the risk of loss of public goodwill; and
(5) as a result, Defendants' statements about Twitter's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
14, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If the
investors wish to join the litigation, they can go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8303 or to discuss
their rights or interests regarding this class action, and contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll-free at 866-767-3653 or
via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR’S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for a number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors, attorney advertising
and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
U.S. MERCHANTS: Pauli Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kilisi Pauli, individual on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated non-exempt former and current employees v. U.S.
MERCHANTS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., a California Corporation; THE
MERCHANT OF TENNIS, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV29468 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., Sept. 9, 2022), is brought to recover, among other
things, wages and penalties from unpaid wages earned and due,
including but not limited to unpaid minimum wages and unpaid wages,
unpaid and illegally calculated overtime compensation, illegal meal
and rest period policies, failure to timely pay wages, failure to
pay all wages due to discharged or quitting employees, failure to
maintain required records, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, failure to indemnify employees for necessary
expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their duties,
and interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.
The Defendants acted pursuant to their policies and practices of
not paying the Plaintiff all wages earned and due, through methods
and schemes which include, but are not limited to, failing to pay
overtime premiums; failing to provide rest and meal periods;
failing to properly maintain records; failing to provide accurate
itemized statements for each pay period; failing to properly
compensate the Plaintiff for necessary expenditures; and requiring,
permitting or suffering the Plaintiff to work off the clock, in
violation of the California Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage
Order, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee.
U.S. MERCHANTS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., conducts business in the
County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq.
SOLOUKI | SAVOY, LLP
316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (213) 814-4940
Facsimile: (213) 814-2550
UNITED MEDICAL: Court Narrows Claims in Norwood FDCPA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICE NORWOOD, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED MEDICAL RECOVERY,
LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-CV-134-DMB-JMV
(N.D. Miss.), Judge Debra M. Brown of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Mississippi, Greenville Division, grants
in part and denies in part UMR's Motion to Dismiss or for Summary
Judgment.
Ms. Norwood filed a class action complaint on Oct. 19, 2021,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
against UMR and "John Does 1-25." The complaint alleges violations
of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA") based on a
Dec. 15, 2020, collection letter UMR sent to Norwood.
After receiving an extension to respond to the complaint, UMR filed
an answer on Dec. 28, 2021. Five weeks later, on Feb. 1, 2022, UMR
filed a Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) and 56, asserting that (1) Norwood
lacks Article III standing and (2) the complaint fails to state a
claim.
Ms. Norwood "allegedly incurred" medical debts with Greenwood
Leflore Hospital at some point prior to Dec. 15, 2020. Greenwood
Leflore Hospital subsequently assigned or retained UMR to collect
the debts.
On Dec. 15, 2020, UMR sent a collection letter to Norwood. The
subject line of the letter states "RE: Greenwood Leflore Hospital
VS Patrice Norwood." The letter is signed by "Rebecca A. Keith
Attorney-at-Law." UMR, however, is not a law firm. The letter does
not "provide a statement that upon request, the debt collector will
provide the consumer with the name and address of the original
creditor." Norwood "was not aware of her proper rights regarding
validation and believed the false threats" related to litigation.
As a result, she "expended time, and effort in determining the
proper course of action" and "would have pursued a different course
of action were it not for UMR's statutory violations."
UMR has moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and failure to state a claim or, alternatively, for summary
judgment based on arguments that Norwood lacks standing to bring
the claims and the collection letter in question did not violate
the applicable statutes.
UMR argues Norwood lacks Article III standing because she has made
no factual allegation that she actually relied to her detriment on
anything in the letter at issue. Norwood responds that she has
several different bases for establishing standing. She says the
violations are substantive violations, and her failure to act on
the letter is a direct result of her confusion regarding the
competing payment demands under Mississippi law and her validation
rights under the FDCPA. This resulted not only in her relinquishing
her validation rights but also incurring additional fees and costs
she would not have otherwise been subject to.
UMR replies that Norwood fails to distinguish any of the cases it
cited in support of its motion. And, relying on TransUnion LLC v.
Ramierz, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021), it argues that "if a plaintiff
fails to demonstrate any harm, the case is properly dismissed."
Judge Brown concludes Norwood has failed to establish standing to
bring her claims. First, Norwood's argument that UMR's violation of
the FDCPA "represents a violation of her substantive right to be
free of abusive and deceptive debt collection practices, thus
conferring Article III standing without the need to show additional
harm," is foreclosed by the Fifth Circuit's interpretation that
TransUnion "requires a concrete injury even in the context of a
statutory violation" such that an alleged FDCPA violation is
insufficient to constitute an injury in fact.
Next, Norwood's reliance on Salermo v. Hughes Watters & Askanase
LLP, 516 F.Supp.3d 696, 709 (S.D. Tex. 2021), does not advance her
position. Quoting Salermo, Norwood argues that "consternation and
fear" she experienced in response to "unrelenting litigation
threats" amount to emotional distress sufficient to amount to an
injury-in-fact. However, unlike in Salermo where the plaintiff
alleged she was "upset and frightened because she thought something
imminent would happen, perhaps a lawsuit would be filed against
her," Norwood's complaint does not allege she suffered from
emotional distress but rather she "was confused and misled" by the
letter. Such is insufficient to confer standing for her FDCPA
claim.
With respect to Norwood's argument that "the competing payment
demands and validation rights in the Letter resulted in her not
paying the debt, which now subjects her to the imminent risk of
additional attorneys' fees and costs," Judge Brown finds that
Norwood's complaint does not contain any allegations that she has
been subjected to such as a result of the letter. Finally,
Norwood's "time and effort spent in deciphering the Letter" do not
amount to an injury in fact in the absence of a "common-law analog
to the time-based injury she claims to have suffered."
Because Norwood fails to carry her burden of showing standing to
bring her claims, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
In response to UMR's motion, Norwood also asks the Court to "grant
her request for leave to amend as it would be particularly fruitful
in the context of her standing arguments. UMR argues that "a motion
for leave to amend a complaint cannot be raised in the body of a
response and no motion to amend, supporting memorandum or proposed
amended complaint has been filed in violation of Local Uniform Rule
7(b)(2).
Judge Robinson agrees that Norwood's request to amend in her
response is procedurally improper under the Local Rules. However,
28 U.S.C. Section 1653 provides that "defective allegations of
jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate
courts" and the Fifth Circuit has held that this statute "should be
liberally construed." Because it is not clear that Norwood cannot
amend her complaint to cure the jurisdictional allegations
identified and because the parties did not have the benefit of the
Fifth Circuit's guidance in Perez at the time of briefing, Norwood
will be allowed a period of time to seek leave to amend.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Robinson grants in part and denies in
part UMR's "Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment." She grants
it to the extent it seeks dismissal of the complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. She denies without prejudice in all
other respects. Within 14 days of the Order, Norwood may seek leave
to amend to address the jurisdictional deficiencies in her
complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycy9xthk from Leagle.com.
UNITED STAFFING: Cannot Contact Class Members in Magtoles Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY GRACE MAGTOLES, AIRA C. TAN, ANA MYRENE ESPINOSA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; ANA
MERVINE ESPINOSA, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STAFFING REGISTRY, INC.
d/b/a UNITED HOME CARE; BENJAMIN H. SANTOS, Defendants, Case No.
21-CV-1850(KAM)(PK)(E.D.N.Y.), Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a
Memorandum and Order granting the class counsel's motion, by order
to show cause, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d),
for an order:
(1) prohibiting the Defendants and their attorneys, agents,
and representatives from communicating with the class
members regarding the action and the claims asserted
without prior court approval;
(2) directing the Defendants to provide the class counsel with
the names and email addresses of all individuals who
received the Defendants' Aug. 30, 2022 email; and
(3) authorizing the class counsel to send a curative notice to
the class members.
On May 25, 2022, the Court certified a class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 of all Filipino nurses who were employed by the
Defendants at any time since April 5, 2011 pursuant to an
employment contract containing a liquidated damages provision,
non-compete clause, immigration notification provision, and a
prevailing wage requirement. It also appointed John J.P. Howley,
Esq. and Leandro B. Lachica, Esq. as co-lead class counsel pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
On June 9, 2022, the class counsel submitted a proposed notice to
class members pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2).
The Court ordered the Defendants to respond, and the Defendants
submitted an alternative proposed class notice on June 17, 2022.
The class counsel consented to the version of the class notice
proposed by the Defendants. Accordingly, the Court approved the
Defendants' version of the class notice on June 27, 2022. The
deadline to opt out of the class was 45 days from the date of
mailing, or Sept. 3, 2022.
Without seeking Court approval, on Aug. 30, 2022, less than a week
before the opt-out deadline, the Defendants sent an email to the
class members encouraging them to opt out of the class. The email,
which was signed by the "United Staffing Registry, Inc. Family,"
was sent from the address "info@unitedstaffingregistry.com" and
copied Ferdinand Pascual, United Staffing's human resources
manager. The subject of the email was "Response to Howley's
Letter," i.e., a response to the court-approved class notice
proposed by the Defendants' counsel.
The Defendants' email acknowledged nurses' receipt of "a letter
from the law office of John Howley, who filed a case against our
company." After noting that the class notice summarized the
Plaintiffs' claims in this action, the first paragraph of email
continued: "The Class Action Notice also states that United
Staffing denies and opposes the allegations mentioned, and that
United Staffing has defenses." The first paragraph of the email
concluded: "In fact, United Staffing filed counterclaims against
the nurses for preterminating their contracts."
The second paragraph of the Defendants' email acknowledged class
members' right to decide whether to remain in the class. Following
this acknowledgement, however, the Defendants added that by opting
into the class, "you may be asked to give testimony and information
about your work for United Staffing, so that your testimony or
information will help the Court decide whether you are actually
owed any money." Their email also reminded class members of the
requisite procedures for opting out and offered to "reimburse"
class members for the cost of mailing the opt-out form. The email
concluded with a list of seven "possible short responses" to the
class counsel for class members to opt out.
After receiving the Defendants' email, a member of the class left a
message for the class counsel stating that "she cannot participate
in the lawsuit because she has health issues and is worried about
the burden of being a party to a lawsuit."
Based on the evidence cited, on Sept. 2, 2022, the class counsel
moved for an order, inter alia, (1) temporarily restraining
Defendants from communicating with the class members concerning
this lawsuit or the claims asserted therein, and (2) directing the
Defendants to respond to any inquiries from class members
concerning the lawsuit by advising them to contact the class
counsel pending a decision on the Plaintiffs' motion.
The Court, finding that the class counsel had shown good and
sufficient reasons, granted a temporary restraining order as
requested and sua sponte extended the deadline to opt out of the
class from Sept. 3, 2022 until Sept. 20, 2022. In addition, it
ordered the Defendants to appear and show cause on Sept. 6, 2022
why an order should not be entered: prohibiting the Defendants and
their attorneys, employees, agents, and representatives from
communicating with class members regarding the action without prior
court approval; authorizing the class counsel to send a curative
notice to the class members; and directing the Defendants to
provide the names and email addresses of all individuals that
received the unauthorized Aug. 30, 2022 email.
In their response to the court's order to show cause, the
Defendants acknowledged that they caused the Aug. 30, 2022 email to
be sent to the class members. They oppose the relief requested by
the Plaintiffs, however, arguing that the Aug. 30, 2022 email was
"not misleading, not inaccurate, and not coercive."
After reviewing the record discussed, Judge Matsumoto finds clear
evidence that the Defendants' unauthorized Aug. 30, 2022 email was
misleading, coercive, and otherwise interfered with the proper
administration of the class action. Moreover, she finds that the
Plaintiff class members will be irreparably harmed if they are
pressured to opt out of the class and forego their rights based on
the Defendants' email.
Accordingly, as requested by the class counsel, Judge Matsumoto
will enter an order: (1) prohibiting the Defendants and their
attorneys, employees, agents, and representatives from
communicating with the class members regarding the action without
prior court approval (however, class members may communicate with
each other about the case); (2) requiring the Defendants to provide
the class counsel with a list of the names and email addresses of
all individuals who received the Aug. 30, 2022 email no later than
12:00 p.m. on Sept. 7, 2022; and (3) authorizing the class counsel
to send a curative notice to the class members, including to advise
the class members of the extension of the opt-out deadline from
Sept. 3, 2022 until Sept. 20, 2022.
First, Judge Matsumoto finds that the Defendants' unauthorized
email is misleading because it is "factually or legally incomplete"
in several respects. Second, their unauthorized email includes
misleading and coercive statements about the burdens of remaining
in the class. Third, their unauthorized email includes several
statements that "lack objectivity and neutrality" and thus, could
coerce or mislead class members into opting out. Finally, "the
majority of courts recognize that an attorney-client relationship
with class counsel arises at the time the class is certified, at
least for the limited purpose of aiding prospective class members
in deciding whether or not to join in the class action."
In sum, Judge Matsumoto concludes that the Defendants' unauthorized
email was sent in the "inherently coercive" context of an ongoing
employment relationship between the Defendants and the class
members. Their email included several misleading statements
regarding the merits of the claims and defenses in the action, as
well as implicit threats and misleading statements regarding the
burdens of remaining a class member. Viewed in its proper context,
Judge Matsumoto finds that the Defendants' email constituted an
improper, coercive, and misleading attempt to encourage class
members to opt out. Under similar circumstances, courts have not
hesitated to grant the relief requested by class counsel.
For the reasons she set forth, Judge Matsumoto grants the class
counsel's motion. She orders as follows:
(1) The Defendants and their attorneys, employees, agents,
and representatives will not communicate with class members
regarding this action without the prior approval of the court or
class counsel. Nothing in the Order will be construed to prevent
the class members from communicating with one another.
(2) By Sept. 7, 2022 at 12:00 p.m., the Defendants will
provide to the class counsel a list of the names and email
addresses of all individuals who received the Aug. 30, 2022 email.
(3) The class counsel will send a curative notice to all
individuals who received the Defendants' unauthorized Aug. 30, 2022
email. The curative notice will include language stating that the
Court extended the opt-out deadline from Sept. 3, 2022 until Sept.
20, 2022. The class counsel will confer with the defense counsel
regarding any other changes to the curative notice proposed by the
class counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/j33dmvzw from Leagle.com.
VISIBLE CHANGES: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Visible Changes, Inc.
The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Visible Changes, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07750 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Visible Changes -- https://visiblechanges.com/ -- is a beauty care
& hair salon that offers high quality services from well-trained
stylists.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
VITALANT: Faces Class Action in Calif. for Labor, FCRA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Mateo employment law attorneys, at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against Vitalant
alleging the company violated the California Labor Code. The
lawsuit against Vitalant is currently pending in the San Mateo
County Superior Court, Case No. 22-CIV-03291. To read a copy of the
Complaint, please click here.
According to the lawsuit filed, Vitalant failed to fully relieve
Plaintiff for her legally required thirty (30) minute meals breaks.
Employees were also allegedly required, from time to time, to work
in excess of four (4) hours without being provided the legally
required ten (10) minute rest periods. The California Supreme Court
defines off-duty rest periods as the time during which an employee
is relieved from all work-related duties and free from employer
control.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C. Sction 1681, et seq.
("FCRA"), provides individuals with a number of rights.
Specifically, pertaining to employment-related background checks,
the FCRA provides that a prospective employee must give valid
consent to the background check. The FCRA requires a signed
authorization and disclosure from the applicant, sometimes referred
to as a "consent" form. Plaintiff completed the background check
and authorization form, despite the authorization form being
invalid under the requirements of the FCRA.
For more information about the class action lawsuit against
Vitalant, call (800) 568-8020 to speak to an experienced California
employment attorney today.
Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is a labor law firm with
law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los
Angeles County, Sacramento County, Santa Clara County, Orange
County and San Francisco County. The firm has a statewide practice
of representing employees on a contingency basis for violations
involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrimination, harassment,
wrongful termination and other types of illegal workplace conduct.
[GN]
WALMART INC: Luthe Files Suit Over Customers' Privacy Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher published in Top Class Actions that Walmart's practice
of collecting, storing, and using customers' biometric information
without obtaining their informed written consent violates Illinois
law, according to a recent class action lawsuit.
Plaintiff James Luthe alleges that Walmart stores in Illinois have
cameras and advanced video surveillance systems that
surreptitiously collect customers' facial scans, allegedly using
Clearview AI software to match customers' facial scans against
billions of facial scans in Clearview’s facial recognition
database.
Additionaly, the Walmart class action lawsuit says that the giant
retailer store does not inform them about the specific purpose and
length of time for which this data will be collected, stored, and
used.
The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) was enacted
to protect residents' biometric information, which includes unique
identifiers like fingerprints and facial scans. Unlike Social
Security numbers or other data that can be changed if compromised,
biometric information is unique to an individual.
If a person's biometric information is compromised, they have no
recourse and are at an increased risk of identity theft, the
Illinois legislature determined.
BIPA requires private entities to inform people in writing that
their biometric information is being collected or stored and the
purpose and length of time for which it will be stored or used. The
entities must also publish publicly available retention schedules
and guidelines indicating when it will permanently destroy the
biometric data.
BIPA also prohibits companies from selling, leasing, or otherwise
profiting from others' biometric data. The Walmart class action
lawsuit alleges the retailer violates this provision of BIPA by
sending customers' facial data through the Clearview Biometric
Database without their knowledge or consent.
Luthe filed the Walmart class action lawsuit on behalf of himself
and other Illinois residents whose biometric data was collected,
stored, disseminated, and/or used by Walmart without their
consent.
This new Walmart class action lawsuit is just one of many to pile
up against the retail giant in 2022. Walmart currently faces
several recalls and class action lawsuits involving allegations of
false advertising, misleading representations, and failing to
properly monitor its money transfer service.
Luthe is represented by Gary M. Klinger and Blake Hunter Yagman of
Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC and Joseph P.
Guglielmo of Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP.
The Walmart class action lawsuit is James Luthe v. Walmart Inc.,
Case No. 3:22-cv-02104, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois. [GN]
WALMART INC: Luthe Sues Over Unlawful Collection of PII
-------------------------------------------------------
James Luthe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WALMART, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02104-NJR (S.D. Ill.,
Sept. 8, 2022), is brought arising out of the Defendant's
collection, storage, and use of the Plaintiff's and the Class's
biometric identifiers and biometric information (referred to
collectively as "Biometric Data") without obtaining informed
written consent or providing consumers with data retention and
destruction policies.
In direct violation of each of the foregoing provisions of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act or BIPA, the Defendant is and has
been actively collecting, storing, and using--without providing
notice, obtaining informed written consent, or publishing data
retention policies--the Biometric Data of thousands of Illinois
residents who have entered Walmart's stores.
Walmart's stores in Illinois are outfitted with cameras and
advanced video surveillance systems that--unbeknownst to
customers--surreptitiously collect, possess, or otherwise obtain
Biometric Data. Walmart does not notify customers of this fact
prior to store entry, nor does it obtain consent prior to
collecting its customers' Biometric Data. Further, Walmart does not
provide a publicly available policy establishing a retention
schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying this Biometric
Data.
In addition, Walmart uses software provided by Clearview AI, Inc.
to match facial scans taken in its Illinois stores with billions of
facial scans maintained within Clearview's massive facial
recognition database (the "Biometric Database"). Walmart does not
notify customers of this fact prior to store entry, nor does it
obtain consent prior to disseminating or disclosing its customers'
Biometric Data through Clearview's Biometric Database. BIPA confers
on Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Illinois residents a
right to know about the inherent risks of Biometric Data storage,
collection, and use, and a right to know how long such risks will
persist.
The Defendant failed to comply with its duties under Illinois law.
Walmart did and does not adequately disclose its Biometric Data
collection practices to its customers, never obtained written
consent from any of its customers regarding its Biometric Data
practices, and never provided any data retention or destruction
policies to any of its customers. Moreover, Walmart invaded the
Plaintiff's and the Class's privacy through the unauthorized
collection, retention, and use of the Plaintiff's Biometric Data,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an Illinois resident and has entered Walmart's
stores on numerous occasions in the past three years.
Walmart is a major brick-and-mortar retailer with thousands of
stores across the U.S. and numerous stores within the state of
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 866.252.0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: 212-594-5300
Email: byagman@milberg.com
- and -
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Ave., 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Phone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
WEALTHSTREAM ADVISORS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wealthstream
Advisors, Inc. case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Wealthstream
Advisors, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07634 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wealthstream Advisors -- https://www.wealthstreamadvisors.com/ --
is an independent boutique wealth management firm built on
meaningful relationships with a select group of clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (917) 796-7437
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com
WINTEROWD FINE ART: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Winterowd Fine Art,
L.L.C. The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Winterowd Fine Art,
L.L.C., Case No. 1:22-cv-07679-RA (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Winterowd Fine Art -- https://fineartsantafe.com/ -- is a
well-established contemporary gallery located on historic Canyon
Rd. in Santa Fe, New Mexico with Art Inspired by Nature.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
WISCONSIN: Sued for Lack of Legal Defense for Low Income Defendants
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Badger Herald Writer, Celia Hiorns, posted that eight named
plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Gov. Tony Evers and
Wisconsin's Public Defender Board on Aug. 23, 2022 over a lack of
legal representation for low-income defendants in criminal cases.
The plaintiffs have been waiting in custody for extended periods of
time because they cannot afford private attorneys but have yet to
be assigned a public defender.
Four litigation groups, including the Wisconsin Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers, filed the suit, asking the state to
immediately appoint legal counsel to those in need or dismiss the
criminal charges against them.
The lawsuit cites the statewide backlog of 35,000 criminal cases as
a reason for prompt action. With such a large number of pending
cases, defendants who should be presumed innocent under Fifth
Amendment due process protections could spend months or longer in
custody.
Delays in criminal trials are often the result of public defender
shortages and the issue stems from multiple causes, all of which
are complicating factors in the right to receive legal
representation.
Adam Plotkin is the legislative liaison at the Wisconsin State
Public Defender's Office. He said the shortage comes down to two
main factors: workload and compensation.
Plotkin said pay is very low compared to the amount of work
publicly appointed attorneys are expected to complete. Over the
past five to 10 years, this imbalance has increased as the practice
of law has changed and technologies such as video evidence have
emerged.
Private attorneys are able to curate a manageable workload for
themselves. But with four out of five criminal defendants unable to
afford counsel, manageable workloads are a luxury for the
backlogged public defender system.
The issue of insufficient pay has been partially addressed in the
past. In March 2021, Gov. Evers signed a bill that allows for
merit-based pay increases for public defenders in the state.
Intended to incentivize experienced attorneys to stay in the public
sector, the bipartisan measure was a hopeful effort to resolve the
shortage.
But the crisis has persisted despite salary increases. Attorneys
continue to gravitate toward the private sector for other benefits,
such as health insurance and childcare plans.
The COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated the crisis. Shutdowns
delayed court processes, which overloaded many employees to the
point of resignation. Because criminal cases in particular require
more time and resources, the public defender system cannot keep up
with the demands amid nationwide labor shortages.
Evidently, this backlog creates significant challenges in granting
due process rights to criminal defendants who can't afford a
private attorney. But like other aspects of the criminal justice
system, these conditions do not impact all Wisconsinites equally.
"There are significant racial disparities in the criminal and legal
system, and so we see that reflected in our clientele, where a
disproportionate number of people of color who are charged with
crimes qualify for a public defender," Plotkin said.
Compounded instances of inequity in the justice system make the
impacts even more pervasive for low-income defendants. Plotkin
cited cash bail as another example of how socioeconomic status
plays a role in one's experience as a criminal defendant.
Though on paper, bail gives criminally charged defendants an
opportunity to be released from detention, many people without the
financial means to post bail have no choice but to remain in
custody. Plotkin said this is a major flaw within the criminal
justice system because the presumption of innocence is not applied
equally across all socioeconomic backgrounds.
"A big fallacy of cash bail is it somehow protects public safety,
but under the cash bail system, if I'm charged with the same crime
as you are, but you have [financial] means and I don't, what makes
you less risky than me?" Plotkin said.
A similar principle holds true in the public defense sector, as
indigent defendants may have to wait months before standing trial.
Criminal defendants who have the means to hire private counsel
immediately undergo a much prompter definition of Sixth Amendment
speedy trial rights.
Ultimately, while policies may not explicitly enforce
discrimination, prejudice against low-income people persists, which
fundamentally influences their experiences as they move through the
criminal justice system.
The inequity of public defense brings to light a larger flaw of law
enforcement: the justice system lacks the capacity to address the
issues it creates. In other words, the state is handing out
criminal charges faster than it can resolve them, and the due
process rights of low-income defendants are suffering as a result.
The class action lawsuit is not intended to figure out how to
repair this broken system, according to WACDL attorney Hank
Schultz. Instead, the plaintiffs in the suit want to place the
responsibility on the government to balance the criminal charges
they issue with their ability to resolve them.
In fact, the lawsuit on its own represents a technical solution to
a structural problem. WACDL attorney John Birdsall emphasized the
responsibility of the government to solve the crisis.
"This lawsuit hopefully is a wake-up call to build a system that
actually operates and actually functions fairly for everybody
involved," Birdsall said in an interview with Wisconsin Public
Radio.
The state must consider its course of action if the plaintiffs win
the class action lawsuit. They would need to derive the resources
to appoint legal counsel in the long-term future or handle the
consequences of dropping criminal charges -- potentially leaving
the victims of crimes without justice.
Sufficient appointment of counsel would require coordinated
initiatives on the parts of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders
and other government entities. Many of the current efforts led by
the Public Defender's Office work to bolster support around the
attorneys in the midst of the shortage. This comes in the form of
paralegal and temporary staff assistance to reduce the workload
placed on public defenders.
The Wisconsin State Public Defender's Office will submit its budget
request for the next biennium on Sept. 15. Plotkin said this will
be a considerable request intended to address recruitment and
retention issues, increase pay, hire support staff and otherwise
mitigate the crisis.
"[These measures] are all geared toward that singular effort of
making sure we have enough resources to appoint counsel to every
person who qualifies, and if approved, the new budget could bring
Wisconsin's public defense system the support it needs to better
serve low-income defendants," Plotkin said.
Clearly, the State Public Defender's Office is acutely aware of the
issue and uses the resources it has to implement meaningful change.
But ultimately, being granted the support they need to resolve the
public defender crisis requires integrated efforts across many
government sectors. Understanding the backlog as an impact of
income-based prejudice is critical for addressing the issue at its
root.
Of course, more basic resources are required to support an
essential -- though grossly overworked -- a group of public
servants. Entirely solving the public defender crisis, however,
also demands a nationwide reckoning of the socioeconomic
disparities inherent in a deeply flawed justice system.[GN]
WP OPERATIONS: Clements' Class Settlement Wins Prelim. Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MITCHELL CLEMENTS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WP OPERATIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-1051-wmc (W.D. Wis.), Judge William M. Conley of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin grants
the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
settlement agreement.
On behalf of himself and other similarly situated, putative
Plaintiffs, Clements claims that WP violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and Wisconsin's wage payment and collection
laws. The parties have stipulated to certify a class under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 and have jointly moved for preliminary approval of a
settlement agreement.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following Rule 23 subclasses for
settlement purposes:
1. Railcar Operator Subclass: All individuals who were
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed by or working at
Defendant, WP Operations, LLC, between Dec. 26, 2017, and
continuing through the present, in the State of Wisconsin in the
position of Railcar Operator (or Railcar Lead Operator, to the
extent such a separate title designation is made in Company
records), who utilized Defendant's electronic timekeeping
system(s), Orbit Solutions and/or Ulti-Pro (or UKG), to track or
record their hours worked.
2. Production Employee Subclass: All individuals who were
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed by or working at
Defendant, WP Operations, LLC, between Dec. 26, 2017 and continuing
through the present in the State of Wisconsin in any position other
than the position of Railcar Operator (or Railcar Lead Operator, to
the extent such a separate title designation is made in Company
records), who utilized Defendant's electronic timekeeping
system(s), Orbit Solutions and/or Ulti-Pro (or UKG), to track or
record their hours worked.
The parties have also stipulated to the following FLSA collectives
for settlement purposes:
1. Railcar Operator Collective: All individuals who were
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed by or working at
Defendant, WP Operations, LLC, between Dec. 26, 2016, and
continuing through the present, in the State of Wisconsin in the
position of Railcar Operator or Railcar Lead Operator, who utilized
Defendant's electronic timekeeping system(s), Orbit Solutions
and/or Ulti-Pro (or UKG), to track or record their hours worked.
2. Production Employee Collective: All individuals who were
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed by or working at
Defendant, WP Operations, LLC, between Dec. 26, 2016, and
continuing through the present, in the State of Wisconsin in any
position other than the position of Railcar Operator or Railcar
Lead Operator, who utilized Defendant's electronic timekeeping
system(s), Orbit Solutions and/or Ulti-Pro (or UKG), to track or
record their hours worked.
WP asserts that there are 254 Production Employees and 53 Railcar
Operators who comprise the settlement. It will pay a gross
settlement amount of $112,005, which will include any attorney fees
and costs. Of that amount, each subclass and collective would
receive no more than: $7,652 for the Railcar Subclass, $10,408.50
for the Production Subclass, $2,709 for the Railcar Collective, and
$6,235.50 for the Production Collective.
Any member of the Rule 23 class who does not exclude himself will
be entitled to a portion of the settlement fund. Members of the
FLSA collectives will only be entitled to a portion of the fund if
they file an Opt-In Consent Form. Finally, all remaining funds from
excluded individuals or uncashed checks will revert to WP. In
addition to the class relief, the Defendants agree to pay class
counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses up to $80,000.
Judge Conley notes that the prerequisites under Rule 23(a) --
numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation
-- determine whether a class may be established. He finds that (i)
the putative class consists of at least 254 production employees
and 53 railcar operators; (ii) the putative class members share the
common questions of fact and related questions of law; (iii) each
class member's claim -- including Clements' claim -- arises from
the Defendant's timekeeping practices and alleged
undercompensation; (iv) Clements is adequate to represent the
proposed class because he has the same interest as the other class
members to be fairly compensated for his hours worked subject to
the same caveats addressed immediately above as to the third
prerequisite; and (v) the Plaintiff's counsel Walcheske & Luzi, LLC
has been appointed the class counsel in several other similar
actions, suggesting that it is able both to litigate and settle
successfully the case at hand.
Since all the Rule 23(a) prerequisites are met, Judge Conley turns
to the superiority and predominance requirements under Rule
23(b)(3). Under Rule 23(b)(3) in particular, certification requires
the class have "questions of law or fact common to class members
that predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members, and that a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
The final requirement is that a class action is superior to other
available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy.
Judge Conley opines that the common issues of fact and law
associated with the claims predominate over any individual issues.
He also opines that with individual damages of less than $50,
separate litigation is not likely to be worthwhile or economical
for individual class members.
Since the Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements are readily
satisfied, class certification will be granted, and Mitchell
Clements and Walcheske & Luzi, LLC will be preliminarily appointed
as the class representative and the class counsel, respectively.
The parties jointly propose a Railcar Operator collective and a
Production Employee collective. They agree that the Plaintiff made
the modest factual showing for conditional certification of a FLSA
class, as shown by the previous analysis. Given the Plaintiff's
similarity to the potential class members and the parties agreement
that the Plaintiff has some chance of successfully showing that he
and other members of the proposed class were injured by WP's
alleged failure to pay workers for pre- and post-shift hours
worked, Judge Conley will conditionally certify the proposed FLSA
collective.
With respect to preliminary settlement approval, Judge Conley is
concerned that the railcar employees will recover a substantially
higher percentage of their wages than the production employees
without explanation, especially since Mitchell Clements, the sole
proposed class representative, is not a member of the production
employee subclass. This creates at least an impression that railcar
employees were favored over production employees. To the extent the
Court approves this proposed settlement preliminarily, the parties
should be prepared to explain this difference.
While this factor weighs somewhat against approval, Judge Conley
still finds that preliminary factors overall suggest that the
parties' proposal is fair, reasonable and adequate. He will approve
the preliminary class action settlement and authorize the mailing
of notice.
Judge Conley next addresses the validity of the named Plaintiff's
incentive award and the counsel's request for attorneys' fees. The
settlement provides Clements with a $5,000 incentive award. As to
attorneys' fees, the parties have proposed that the class counsel
be awarded $80,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses and suggest this
is far less than the Class Counsel's fees and costs to date.
Judge Conley is skeptical that an $80,000 fee is justified, despite
the hours the Plaintiff's counsel allegedly put into the case. In
fairness, the parties suggest that "because this matter does not
involve the payment of attorneys' fees and costs as a percentage of
a common settlement fund, the Court does not need to apply common
fund principles in order to approve the Class Counsel's attorneys'
fees and costs." However, it seems prudent to look at the
attorneys' recovery relative to the class as test for self-dealing.
Despite significant concerns, Judge Concley will nevertheless allow
the parties to issue notice to the class of the proposed settlement
subject to further scrutiny of the class counsel's application for
attorneys' fees, including submission of the counsel's actual
hourly billing records and rates.
Finally, Judge Conley will authorize the class counsel to send
notice to members of the class. The proposed notice provides class
members with information regarding the nature and claims of the
action, a definition of the classes and collective, class members'
option to appear through counsel, and the availability and process
for exclusion or objection. Furthermore, the notice details the
option for class members to be excluded and the effect on members
of a class judgment.
Still, Judge Conley notes the following modifications on pages 4
and 5 of the proposed notice that the class counsel should make
before sending it out:
1. Under Payments to Participants on page 4, two additional
sentences should read that: However, generally speaking, Railcar
Subclass members are expected to collect about 100% of their
past-due wages while Production Subclass members are expected to
collect about 50% of their past-due wages. Similarly, the breakdown
for the Railcar and Production Collectives will be about 68% and
38% of past-due wages, respectively.
2. Under If You Object on page 5, the notice should simply
require class members to send objections to the court and include
the court's contact information. Class members should not be
required to send the objection to counsel; instead, the court will
docket any objections it receives for both sides' information.
In light of the foregoing, Judge Conley denies as moot the
Plaintiff's motions to certify the class under rule 23 and the
Defendant's motion to file an amended answer. He grants the
Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement
agreement.
Judge Conley certifies the following Rule 23 classes for settlement
purposes:
1. Railcar Operator Subclass: All individuals who were
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed by or working at
Defendant, WP Operations, LLC, between December 26, 2017, and
continuing through the present, in the State of Wisconsin in the
position of Railcar Operator (or Railcar Lead Operator, to the
extent such a separate title designation is made in Company
records), who utilized Defendant's electronic timekeeping
system(s), Orbit Solutions and/or Ulti-Pro (or UKG), to track or
record their hours worked.
2. Production Employee Subclass: All individuals who were
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed by or working at
Defendant, WP Operations, LLC, between December 26, 2017 and
continuing through the present in the State of Wisconsin in any
position other than the position of Railcar Operator (or Railcar
Lead Operator, to the extent such a separate title designation is
made in Company records), who utilized Defendant's electronic
timekeeping system(s), Orbit Solutions and/or Ulti-Pro (or UKG), to
track or record their hours worked.
Judge Conley certifies the following FLSA collectives for
settlement purposes:
1. Railcar Operator Collective: All individuals who were
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed by or working at
Defendant, WP Operations, LLC, between December 26, 2016, and
continuing through the present, in the State of Wisconsin in the
position of Railcar Operator or Railcar Lead Operator, who utilized
Defendant's electronic timekeeping system(s), Orbit Solutions
and/or Ulti-Pro (or UKG), to track or record their hours worked.
2. Production Employee Collective: All individuals who were
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed by or working at
Defendant, WP Operations, LLC, between December 26, 2016, and
continuing through the present, in the State of Wisconsin in any
position other than the position of Railcar Operator or Railcar
Lead Operator, who utilized Defendant's electronic timekeeping
system(s), Orbit Solutions and/or Ulti-Pro (or UKG), to track or
record their hours worked.
The case is conditionally certified as a collective action under 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for purposes
of discovery and sending notice to the putative plaintiffs as
defined.
Clements is appointed as the class representative and Walcheske &
Luzi, LLC as the class counsel.
The proposed notice attached as Exhibit B to the Settlement
Agreement is approved and the class counsel is authorized to
distribute it as provided in the parties' submissions subject to
adoption of the modifications specifically set forth in the
Opinion.
Judge Conley approves the following settlement procedure and
timeline:
a. no later than Oct. 7, 2022, the Settlement Administrator
will begin mailing the notice to class members consistent with the
opinion above;
b. the class members will have until 45 days after mailing of
notice to submit a request to be excluded or any objections;
c. no later than Nov. 28, 2022, the class counsel will file a
petition for attorneys' fees and costs;
d. no later than Dec. 5, 2022, the class counsel will provide
the list of excluded class members to the Defendant's counsel; and
e. a motion for final approval and any briefing in support,
as well as any objection to the class counsel's fee petition are
due Dec. 12, 2022.
The Court will hold a fairness hearing on Dec. 20, 2022, at 1:00
p.m.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/39c5b2e4 from Leagle.com.
ZILLOW GROUP: Popa Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping
-------------------------------------------------
Ashley Popa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01287-WSS (W.D.
Pa., Sept. 8, 2022), is brought against Zillow for wiretapping the
electronic communications of visitors to its website,
www.zillow.com in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and
Electronic Surveillance Control Act and constitutes an invasion of
the privacy rights of website visitors.
Zillow procures third-party vendors, such as Microsoft Corporation,
to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code ("Session Replay
Code") on Zillow's website, which then deploys on each website
visitor's internet browser for the purpose intercepting and
recording the website visitor's electronic communications with the
Zillow website, including their mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes
(such as text being entered into an information field or text box),
URLs of web pages visited, and/or other electronic communications
in real-time ("Website Communications"). These third-party vendors
(collectively, "Session Replay Providers") create and deploy the
Session Replay Code at Zillow's request.
After intercepting and capturing the Website Communications, Zillow
and the Session Replay Providers use those Website Communications
to recreate website visitors' entire visit to www.zillow.com. The
Session Replay Providers create a video replay of the user's
behavior on the website and provide it to Zillow for analysis.
Zillow's procurement of the Session Replay Providers to secretly
deploy the Session Replay Code results in the electronic equivalent
of "looking over the shoulder" of each visitor to the Zillow
website for the entire duration of their website interaction, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff has visited www.zillow.com on her computer while in
Pennsylvania.
Zillow operates the website www.zillow.com. Zillow is the "leading
online residential real estate" marketplace in the United States
for consumers, connecting them to the information and real estate
professionals they need to buy, sell, or rent a home.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
Patrick D. Donathen, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: 412-322-9243
Facsimile: 412-231-0246
Email: gary@lcllp.com
kelly@lcllp.com
jamisen@lcllp.com
elizabeth@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
patrick@lcllp.com
ZINNIA FOLK ARTS: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zinnia Folk Arts,
LLC. The case is styled as Victoria Dicks, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Zinnia Folk Arts, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-07654 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Zinnia Folk Arts -- https://zinniafolkarts.com/ -- are a small
top-quality Mexican folk art shop in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***