/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221010.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, October 10, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 196
Headlines
9W HALO: Joint Stipulation to Continue Briefing Schedule Filed
9W HALO: Smith Must File Class Certification Bid by Feb. 9, 2023
ABERDEEN BARN: Carrol Bid for Conditional Status Partly OK'd
ALLIANZ LIFE: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 7
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Baker FLSA Suit Seeks Court-Authorized Notice
APPLE INC: Robert, et al., File Renewed Bid for Class Certification
ARGENT TRUST: Evades IRC Caps on Executive Compensation, Suit Says
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Espinal, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
BOFI HOLDING: Mandalevy Settlement Class Gets Final Certification
BP EXPLORATION: Cook's Expert Testimony Excluded in Swanier Suit
BP EXPLORATION: Court Excludes Cook Expert Testimony in Fuller Suit
BP EXPLORATION: Court Excludes Cook's Testimony in Maurras Suit
BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Lee Suit
CAPITAL JAZZ: Class Action Lawsuit Over COVID-19 Ticket Refunds
CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Suit Seeks to Certify Client Class
CLEVELAND AVE: Hogan, et al., Seek to Certify Collective Action
CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: Awaits Mag. Judge's Ruling on Rodriguez Deal
ENVOY AIR: $300,000 Deal in Biometric Privacy Suit Gets Prelim. OK
FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE: Court Junks Bid to Dismiss Aboah SAC
FIRST TRANSIT: Wins Bid to Stay Woods Case Pending Disposition
FISKAA LLC: Hizmo Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime Under FLSA & NYLL
GLOBAL MEDICAL: Discriminates Workers Based on Religion, Disability
GOFUND ADVANCE: Haymount, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
GOOGLE LLC: Violates NY Video Consumer Privacy Act, Alleges Lawsuit
GRAPHICS SERVICE: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA & NYLL, Flores Alleges
GROENDYKE TRANSPORT: Brown Seeks to Certify Coordinator Class
HUNDREDS IS HUGE: Murphy Seeks Final OK of Class Settlement
HURRICANE SHUTTER: Milanes Seeks Reconsideration of Dismissal Order
IKON PASS: Ticket Holders Will Get Court-Ordered Compensation
KONA COFFEE: Settlement in Mislabeling Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
LEMON CREEK: Lawyer Frustrated by Tactics in 2013 Fuel Spill Suit
LG ELECTRONICS: Brito Sues Over Defective Ranges' Control Knobs
LIVING WELL: Howard Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
MANITOBA: $1B Class Action Suit Filed Over Child Welfare System
MARK ALLEN: Healey Seeks Conditional Status of Instructor Class
MDL 2827: Final OK of $310M Class Deal in Apple Device Suit Vacated
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Crawford Sues Over Defective Vehicles' Battery
MERIT ENERGY: GOP Sues Over Interest Owed on Untimely Payments
META PLATFORMS: Shareholders File Class-Action Over High Costs
MGM RESORTS: Lucas, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
NATIONWIDE CHILDREN'S: Faces Class Suit Over Labor Law Violations
NATIXIS INVESTMENT: Waldner Seek to Certify 401(k) Plan Class
NEW ORIENTAL: Consolidated Securities Suit Still in Prelim. Stage
NINJARMM LLC: Court Approves Settlement Agreement in Vlack Suit
OLIN CORP: Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Classes
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Defined Benefit Sues Over $43.23 Stock Price Drop
PETROCHEM INSULATION: Court Extends Submission of Analyst Report
PIZZA FRIENDLY: Juarez Seeks to Recover OT Premiums Under FLSA
PUSHPAY USA: Blankers, et al., Seek Final Approval of Settlement
QUALCOMM INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Consumer Data Breach
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Patient Services Reps Win Class Action Status
RAGLAND, AL: Trammell Sues Over to Recover Unpaid Wages
RUMBLE INC: Discloses Subscribers' Info to Facebook, Suit Alleges
RYDER SYSTEM: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Investor Class
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Consumer Class Action Over Data Breach
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Fails to Secure Borrowers' Info, Suit Alleges
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Kelechian Sues Over Data Breach
SAN JOSE CITY, CA: Parties Seek Dec 16 Deadline for Class Cert Bid
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Brant Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
SELECTQUOTE INC: Faces Hartel Securities Suit in New York Court
SELECTQUOTE INC: Faces Securities Suit in New York Court Over IPO
SESEN BIO: Securities Suit Settlement Gets Initial Court Approval
SHOPIFY INC: My Choice Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE: Valdez Suit Seeks Conditional Class Cert.
SPARC GROUP: Montes Sues Over Falsely Discounted Clothing
SPARTRONICS IRVINE: Magbag Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
SPLUNK INC: Parties Seek to Modify Class Certification Schedule
STATE FARM: Millwood Suit Wins Bid for Class Certification
STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Court Amends Case Management Order in Nguyen
STRYTEN ENERGY: Munson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SUPER MICRO COMPUTER: Hearing on Initial OK of Settlement Vacated
SYGMA NETWORK: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Collective
TD BANK NA: Gallant Sues Over Misrepresentations and Omissions
TERREBONNE PARISH: O'Bryan Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TFORCE LOGISTICS: Lim Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement
TIKTOK INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Image Misuse
TIP TOP COCKTAILS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TOYOTA MOTOR: McClure Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
TRAVELERS PROPERTY: Dale Sues Over Auto Insurance Policies
TWC PRODUCT: Asks Court for Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply
U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Brown Says
UNIFIRST CORPORATION: Salas Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
UNIQLO CO: Class Action Accuses of Wiretapping Private Chat Convo
UNITED STATES: Lewis Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Parolees
UPSIDE NORTH AMERICA: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
USAA GENERAL: Fuller Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
USAA: Court Enters Third Amended Scheduling Order in Tomczak
VHERNIER USA.: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
VIESTE SPE: Completion Date of Class Depositions Extended
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Cars Have Water Pump Defects, Class Suit Says
WALMART INC: Faces Suit Over Rescinded Employment Offer
WELLPATH LLC: Hoyle Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
WESTERN RANGE: Castillo Wins Partial Summary Judgment Bid
WINGSTOP RESTAURANTS: Carpio Files Suit in E.D. New York
WOODLANDS KIRBY'S: Ferrell Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
ZILLOW GROUP: Adams Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
ZILLOW GROUP: Margulis Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
ZILLOW GROUP: Perkins Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping
[*] Arbitration Agreements Upheld in FCRA Suit Against Retailers
[*] Litigation Funders Warn EU Regulation Could Hinder Lawsuits
*********
9W HALO: Joint Stipulation to Continue Briefing Schedule Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH SMITH, on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, v. 9W HALO WESTERN OPCO
L.P., doing business as ANGELICA, a Delaware corporation; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-01968-PJH (N.D. Cal.),
the Parties stipulated and agreed to continue the briefing schedule
for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification as follows:
Event Current New
Deadline Deadline
-- Plaintiff's Motion Nov. 17, 2022 Feb. 9, 2023
for Class Certification
-- Defendant's Opposition Jan. 19, 2023 April 13, 2023
to Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Plaintiff's Reply in Feb. 2, 2023 May 11, 2023
Support of Motion for
Class Certification:
9w Halo was founded in 2016. The company's line of business
includes supplying linen to commercial establishments and household
users.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 26, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RpQNyQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
William M. Pao, Esq.
Nolan Dilts, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 888-7771
Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
william@setarehlaw.com
nolan@setarehlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by
Kenneth Smith Alden J. Parker, Esq.
Christopher S. Alvarez, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 210-0400
Facsimile: (916) 210-0401
E-mail: aparker@fisherphillips.com
calvarez@fisherphillips.com
9W HALO: Smith Must File Class Certification Bid by Feb. 9, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH SMITH, on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, v. 9W HALO WESTERN OPCO
L.P., doing business as ANGELICA, a Delaware corporation; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-01968-PJH (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered an order to continue the
briefing schedule for the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification as follows:
1. The Plaintiff's Motion for February 9, 2023
Class Certification shall be
filed no later than
2. Any Opposition shall be filed no April 13, 2023
later than:
3. Any Reply shall be filed no later May 11, 2023
than
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y6fdGA at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
William M. Pao, Esq.
Nolan Dilts, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
william@setarehlaw.com
nolan@setarehlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kenneth Smith, Esq.
Alden J. Parker, Esq.
Christopher S. Alvarez, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 210-0400
Facsimile: (916) 210-0401
E-mail: aparker@fisherphillips.com
calvarez@fisherphillips.com
ABERDEEN BARN: Carrol Bid for Conditional Status Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN E. CARROLL, et al.,
v. NORTHAMPTON RESTAURANTS INC., d/b/a ABERDEEN BARN STEAKHOUSE, et
al.,Case No. 2:21-cv-00115-AWA-RJK (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge
Arenda L. Wright Allen entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification and for issuance of court-supervised notice:
1. The conditionally certified collective action is defined
as follows:
"All persons who currently work or formerly worked at the
Aberdeen Barn Steakhouse for Northampton Restaurants, Inc.
as waiters or waitresses at any time from September 2018
to June 2021.
2. The Court approves the notice form with the following
changes:
a. References to "servers, waiters, waitresses, hosts,
hostesses, or bussers" shall be revised to "waiters or
waitresses."
b. References to the time period a waiter or waitress
worked at Aberdeen Barn Steakhouse shall be revised to
"September 2018 to June 2021."
c. Section IV under the heading "Effect of Joining the
Lawsuit" shall include the following language: "While
the lawsuit is proceeding, you may be required to
provide information, sit for depositions, and testify
in court."
3. The Court approves the consent form.
4. Within seven days of the date of the Order, the Plaintiffs
shall file a notice with the Court attaching the final
versions of the notice form and the opt-in form reflecting
the changes ordered above. The Court expects there will be
no dispute given the simplicity of the changes, but
Defendants may submit any objection to the final versions
of the forms with respect to compliance with the above
instructions only within three days of the filing of said
notice.
5. Within fourteen days of the date of this Order, the
the Defendants shall produce to Plaintiffs’ counsel an
alphabetical list of all employees employed at the
Aberdeen Barn Steakhouse as waiters or waitresses at any
time from September 2018 to June 2021 (in electronic,
importable and native format) and include the following
information: name, job title, last known mailing address,
phone number, email address, and dates of employment.
6. Absent any objection by Defendants to the final versions
of the notice form and the opt-in form submitted to the
Court, a copy of the final versions of the notice form and
the opt-in form shall be provided via first-class mail and
email to all members of the conditionally certified
collective.
7. If first-class mail notice to specific individuals is
returned as undeliverable, the Plaintiffs may attempt to
contact those specific individuals by text or advise
Defendants of the undeliverable notice. Within five days
of being so advised, Defendants shall turn over the last
four digits of employees' social security numbers.
8. A properly signed copy of the opt-in form must be returned
or postmarked no later than 60 days from the mailing of
the notice.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EcNY1b at no extra charge.[CC]
ALLIANZ LIFE: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 7
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lawanda D. Small v.
Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No.
2:20-cv-01944-TJH-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter,
Jr. entered an order granting the joint stipulation and request
time to complete class discovery and file class certification
motion, and orders as follows:
1. Deadline to complete class discovery shall move from
September 23, 2022, to November 23, 2022;
2. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class
certification shall be by Dec. 7, 2022;
3. The Defendant's opposition shall be due January 16, 2023;
4. The Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class
certification shall be due February 6, 2023;
5. The proposed class certification hearing date is February
27, 2023; and
6. All other deadlines shall remain the same.
Allianz Life operates as an insurance company. The Company provides
life, health, and disability insurance services.
On September 22, 2022, teh Plaintiff and Defendant filed their
Joint Stipulation and Request Time to Complete Class Discovery and
File Class Certification Motion.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MbIqWJ at no extra charge.[CC]
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Baker FLSA Suit Seeks Court-Authorized Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEON BAKER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE ANTHEM
COMPANIES, INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-04866-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the
Plaintiff moves for court-authorized notice under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).
The FLSA action is one of a series of state-wide collective actions
against subsidiaries of Anthem, Inc. The Defendants The Anthem
Companies, Inc., Blue Cross Blue Shield Healthcare Plan of Georgia,
Inc., and AMGP Georgia Managed Care Company, Inc. are all
subsidiaries of Anthem, Inc.
In this action, Plaintiff Deon Baker seeks to represent a putative
collective of similarly situated medical management nurses in
Georgia employed by Defendants who were not paid proper overtime
compensation.
The Defendants use various job titles for their medical management
nurses, including utilization review nurse and medical management
nurse, but regardless of job title, these workers shared the same
non-exempt primary job duty of conducting utilization reviews, also
known as medical necessity reviews, for insurance coverage
purposes.
Moreover, the Defendants uniformly classified these workers as
exempt from the overtime protections of the FLSA.
Through this motion, Plaintiff seeks authorization from this Court
to issue notice to putative collective members who meet this
definition so that they may decide whether to opt-in to the
action.
The Plaintiff contends that she has satisfied her "fairly lenient"
burden of providing a "reasonable basis" that she and the opt-in
Plaintiffs are similarly situated to the putative collective
members that she seeks to represent. The Court should thereby grant
Plaintiff's motion and approve notice of this lawsuit, she adds.
On November 29, 2021, Plaintiff Deon Baker filed a collective
action complaint under the FLSA, on behalf of herself and all other
medical management nurses who worked for The Anthem Companies in
Georgia during the applicable statutory period to recover unpaid
wages.
On July 6, 2022, with the Court's permission, 1 Plaintiff amended
her complaint to add Defendants Blue Cross Blue Shield Healthcare
Plan of Georgia, Inc. and AMGP Georgia Managed Care Company, Inc.
The Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against these
newly added entities.
The Parties subsequently reached a stipulation, whereby Plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint with additional allegations
against all Defendants and the Defendants withdrew their motion to
dismiss.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 26,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UU0f0k
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
Caitlin L. Opperman, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: srey@nka.com
copperman@nka.com
- and -
John T. Sparks, Sr.
AUSTIN & SPARKS, P.C.
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 869-0100
Facsimile: (404) 869-0200
E-mail: jsparks@austinsparks.com
APPLE INC: Robert, et al., File Renewed Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re Apple iPhone
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs Robert Pepper, Stephen H. Schwartz, Edward W. Hayter and
Edward Lawrence renew their motion for an Order:
1. certifying the following Class:
"All persons in the United States, exclusive of Apple and
its employees, agents and affiliates, and the Court and
its employees, who purchased one or more iOS applications
or application licenses from Defendant Apple, or who paid
Apple for one or more in-app purchases, including, but not
limited to, any subscription purchase, for use on an iOS
Device at any time since July 10, 2008."
The Class is limited to those persons who paid more than
$10.00 in total to Apple during the Class Period for iOS
applications and in-app purchases from any one Apple ID
account.
2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and
3. appointing Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP and
Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C. as Co-
Class Counsel.
Apple is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in consumer electronics, software and online services
headquartered in Cupertino, California.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 26,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CxFBvX
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rachele R. Byrd
Betsy C. Manifold
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street, Suite 1820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 239-4599
Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
byrd@whafh.com
- and -
Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Ave
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-4600
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com
guiney@whafh.com
burt@whafh.com
- and -
David C. Frederick, Esq.
Aaron M. Panner, Esq.
Daniel V. Dorris, Esq.
KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL &
FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 326-7900
Facsimile: (202) 326-7999
E-mail: dfrederick@kellogghansen.com
apanner@kellogghansen.com
ddorris@kellogghansen.com
- and -
Michael Liskow, Esq.
CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP
1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10036-5803
Telephone: (212) 899-1761
Facsimile: (332) 206-2073
E-mail: mliskow@calcaterrapollack.com
ARGENT TRUST: Evades IRC Caps on Executive Compensation, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
PHYLLIS MICHELE HOWELL, SIMON REISERT, and CAROLE SPEIGHT, on
behalf of The North Highland Company Employee Stock Ownership and
401(k) Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons
similarly situated v. ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, NORTH HIGHLAND ESOP
HOLDINGS, INC., THE NORTH HIGHLAND COMPANY, INC., THE NORTH
HIGHLAND COMPANY LLC, THE NORTH HIGHLAND HOLDING CO., LLC, DAN
REARDON, ALEX BOMBECK, BETH SCHIAVO, and LAUREN CHILDERS, Case No.
1:22-cv-03959-SDG (N.D. Ga., Sept. 30, 2022) alleges that the
Individual Defendants evaded Internal Revenue Code (IRC) caps on
executive compensation, deprived the ESOP and its participants of
corporate control, and diluted the equity interests of The North
Highland Company Employee Stock Ownership and 401(k) Plan (ESOP)
and its participants while seizing the primary benefits of the
massive tax subsidies provided by Congress for the benefit of the
Individual Defendants at the expense of North Highland's
employee-owners.
ESOP-owned S Corps enjoy generous tax subsidies. Georgia-based
ESOP-owned S Corps operate free of federal and state income tax,
effectively increasing net income by 30% or more to encourage
employee ownership. To ensure such taxpayer-financed companies
operate primarily for the benefit of employee-owners, ERISA
prohibits such S Corps from diverting the economic benefits of tax
subsidies to executives by capping executive equity ownership, both
actual and synthetic.
According to the complaint, the Defendants sought to avoid the
constraints of IRC 409(p) and divert the generous tax subsidies
from the employee-owners to the Individual Defendants by creating a
shell S Corp intermediary between the ESOP and the operating
company, a newly-created LLC. By awarding equity in the underlying
LLC, in which the ESOP had no direct ownership, to the Individual
Defendants, Argent, who was supposed to act solely in the interests
of the ESOP and the employee-owners, and the Individual Defendants
diluted the economic interests of the ESOP and diverted the massive
taxpayer subsidies from benefiting the employee-owners. Argent also
ceded material control over the enterprise by allowing the
operations to drop down into the LLC and caused a prohibited
transaction when the ESOP's shares in North Highland Oldco were
converted into shares of a new holding company, an affiliated
employer, which in turn acquired units in the LLC, also an
affiliated employer, says the suit.
On October 1, 2016, the Individual Defendants, with Argent's
agreement, reorganized North Highland Oldco. Under the
Reorganization, the ESOP exchanged all shares in the North Highland
Oldco for approximately 4.8 million shares of North Highland ESOP
Holdings, Inc., a newly formed S-Corporation. Simultaneously, the
Individual Defendants, with Argent's agreement, created a new LLC,
North Highland Holding Co., LLC to hold substantially all the
operating assets of the company and the ESOP received units in the
LCC, the suit asserts.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristi Stahnke McGregor, Esq.
James M. Evangelista, Esq.
EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
500 Sugar Mill Road, Ste. 245A
Atlanta, GA 30350
Telephone: (404) 205-8400
E-mail: kristi@ewlawllc.com
jim@ewlawllc.com
- and -
Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
Laura E. Babiak, Esq.
Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
34 N. Gore Ave., Suite 102
Webster Groves, Mo 63119
Telephone: (314) 863-5446
Facsimile: (314)-863-5483
E-mail: mboyko@baileyglasser.com
rjenny@baileyglasser.com
gporter@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Robert A. Izard, Esq.
Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
IZARD KINDALL & RAABE
29 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 493-6292
Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
dneedham@ikrlaw.com
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Espinal, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OMAR A. ESPINAL, FREDY O.
CARBAJAL, ARLEN Y. MARTINEZ, OSCAR RENE CALDERON ROMERO and
WELLINGTON TORRES, On behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated persons, v. BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE, LLC, XPO LAST MILE,
INC., ABC CORPS. And JANE & JOHN DOES, Case No.
2:17-cv-02854-JMV-JBC (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
entry of the following relief:
1. Certification of this action as a Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)
(3) on behalf of the following class of similarly situated
persons:
"All individuals that were based out of the Defendants'
Edison and Carteret, New Jersey warehouses that performed
truck driving and/or helper functions for the Defendants
from April 26, 2015 through to January 2017 out of the
Edison Facility and from May 1, 2017 through to the
present out of the Carteret Facility, who did not have
direct contracts with either Defendant, and who worked
more than 40 hours per week performing deliveries for
Defendants;"
2. Appointment of Plaintiffs' undersigned legal counsel as
Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g);
3. Appointment of Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;
4. Court facilitated Notice of this Class Action to all Class
Members;
5. Production by Defendants of the names, last known address,
alternate addresses (if any), all known telephone numbers
(including cellular phone numbers), all known email
addresses, social security numbers, dates of birth and
dates of employment of all Class Members; and
6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.
Bob's Discount is an American furniture store chain headquartered
in Manchester, Connecticut. The company opened its first store in
1991 in Newington, Connecticut and is ranked 12th in sales among
United States furniture stores according to Furniture Today's list
of Top 100 Furniture Stores.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 23,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EaBsPL
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
50 Millstone Road
Building 300, Suite 202
East Windsor, New Jersey 08520
Telephone: (609) 469-2110
Facsimile: (609) 228-5649
E-mail: rsattiraju@s-tlawfirm.com
BOFI HOLDING: Mandalevy Settlement Class Gets Final Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BAR MANDALEVY,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BOFI HOLDING, INC., GREGORY GARRAGBRANTS, ANDREW J. MICHELETTI,
ESHEL BAR-ADON and PAUL GRINBERG, Case No. 3:17-cv-00667-GPC-KSC
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel entered an order:
1. granting motion for final certification of the proposed
settlement class;
2. granting motion for final approval of the proposed
settlement and to allocate the settlement proceeds
defendants;
3. granting final approval of the notice of the settlement;
and
4. granting motion for attorneys' fees and expenses, notice
and administrative costs, and award to plaintiff.
-- The Attorneys' Fee Award
Class Counsel seeks $225,000 in attorneys' fees, or 25%
of total Settlement Amount, and $138,631.36 plus
interest in costs. Based on the reasoning below, the
Court finds that the attorneys' fees and costs are
reasonable.
-- Notice and Administration Costs
Lead Counsel seeks $70,987.93 for the Claims
Administrator for all notice and administration costs
incurred as of July 29, 2022 and additional costs
incurred as of September 6, 2022, which are detailed in
the Plaintiff's Reply.
No class member objects to this payment. Thus, the
Court approve payment to the Claims Administrator for
all costs incurred to date.
-- Award to Lead Plaintiff
For the reasons already discussed, the Court finds the
$2,500 award to the Lead Plaintiff fair and reasonable.
-- Class Certification for Settlement Purposes
The Court hereby affirms its determinations in the
Preliminary Approval Order certifying, for the purposes
of the Settlement only, the Action as a class action
pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Settlement Class
consisting of:
"all persons and entities who or which purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of BofI Securities between
March 14, 2016 and October 24, 2017, inclusive (the
Settlement Class Period) and were allegedly damaged
thereby."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are the
Defendants, the present and former Officers and
directors of BofI and any subsidiary thereof, and the
Immediate Family members, legal representatives,
heirs, successors or assigns of such excluded persons
and any entity in which any such excluded person has
or had a controlling interest during the Settlement
Class Period.
On April 3, 2017, the Plaintiff Mandalevy filed a putative class
action complaint against the Defendants. The Court thereafter
appointed David Grigsby as Lead Plaintiff, and Pomerantz LLP as
Lead Counsel.
On February 20, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed a Class Action Amended
Complaint. ECF No. 27. On July 10, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed the
Second Amended Complaint (SAC), which is the operative complaint in
this action.
Among other changes, the Plaintiffs added Eshel Bar-Adon and Paul
J. Grinberg as Defendants in this action in the SAC. See SAC.
The Plaintiff’s SAC brings two causes of action against
Defendants. First, the Plaintiffs allege all Defendants are liable
for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5. Second, the Plaintiffs allege the Individual Defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E58iRZ at no extra charge.[CC]
BP EXPLORATION: Cook's Expert Testimony Excluded in Swanier Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARQUEDA SWANIER v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC.,
ET AL., SECTION D (5), Civil Action No. 17-4644 (E.D. La.), Judge
Wendy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana issued an order granting the following motions filed
by Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America
Production Co., BP p.l.c., Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.,
Transocean Holdings, LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and
Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.:
a. the Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of
Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; and
b. the Motion for Summary Judgment.
The case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico in 2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf
Coast. On Jan. 11, 2013, District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who
presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the
Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical
Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "MSA"). However,
certain individuals, referred to as "B3" plaintiffs, either opted
out of or were excluded from the MSA. Swanier opted out of the MSA
and, accordingly, is a B3 plaintiff.
Ms. Swanier filed this individual action against the Defendants on
May 3, 2017 to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a result
of the oil spill. Over the course of two years from 2010 until
2012, she worked as a beach cleanup worker, tasked with cleaning up
oil and oil-covered debris from the beaches and coastal areas in
Gulfport, Biloxi, Long Beach, Pass Christian, Moss Point,
Pascagoula, Ship Island, Cat Island, Horn Island, and Petit Bois
Island, Mississippi.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' negligence and
recklessness in both causing the Gulf oil spill and subsequently
failing to properly design and implement a clean-up response caused
her to suffer myriad injuries including breathing problems, hives,
skin irritation, coughing, headaches, eye irritation, rashes, and
sinus problems. Specifically, she seeks to recover economic
damages, personal injury damages -- including damages for past and
future medical expenses and for pain and suffering -- punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.
To help support her claims that exposure to the chemicals present
in the oil spilled by the Defendants caused her particular health
symptoms, Plaintiff offers the report and testimony of Dr. Jerald
Cook. Dr. Cook is a retired Navy physician with expertise
specifically as an occupational and environmental physician. His
Report is not tailored directly to the Plaintiff's claims; rather,
his generic causation report has been utilized by numerous B3
plaintiffs, including many plaintiffs currently before the Court as
well as in other cases before other sections of the Court.
Accordingly, Dr. Cook's Report pertains only to general causation
and not to specific causation.
The Defendant filed the instant Motions on June 27, 2022. In their
Daubert Motion in Limine, they contend that Dr. Cook's report
should be excluded as it is both unreliable and unhelpful to the
trier of fact. They primarily point to the opinions of other
sections of this court which have excluded this very same Report on
grounds of unreliability to suggest that the Court should likewise
exclude the Report. Further, the Defendants contend that Dr. Cook's
specific methodology is unreliable and that Dr. Cook failed to
establish the harmful level of exposure to the chemicals the
Plaintiff allegedly was exposed to at which harmful health effects
occur. Next, because Dr. Cook should be excluded to testify, the
Defendants argue, the Court should grant their Motion for Summary
Judgment as the Plaintiff is unable to establish general causation
through expert testimony, a necessary requirement under controlling
Circuit precedent.
The Plaintiff disputes the Defendants' characterization of Dr.
Cook's Report. She argues that Dr. Cook utilized a proper
methodology in conducting his general causation analysis and that
he thoroughly explained his methods. Further, she argues that the
Report does provide adequate harmful exposure level data for each
health condition she exhibited and that to the extent that Dr. Cook
is unable to provide more specific exposure-level data, it is the
fault of Defendants for improperly restricting access to scientific
research teams to gather such data. Finally, the Plaintiff contends
that expert testimony is not necessary for a transient symptom
case. Further, in her opposition to the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment, the Plaintiff points to orders from other
sections of the Court which concluded that expert testimony may not
be required to establish symptoms within the common knowledge of
lay people.
The Defendants argue that Dr. Cook's Report should be excluded for
five principal reasons: (1) Dr. Cook's failure to verify the
Plaintiff's alleged medical conditions; (2) Dr. Cook's failure to
follow the proper causation-analysis methodology; (3) Dr. Cook's
failure to adequately evaluate the relevant scientific
epidemiological literature; (4) Dr. Cook's failure to identify the
harmful level exposure for each and every chemical that the
Plaintiff alleges to have been exposed to; and (5) Dr. Cook's
failure to make his opinions helpful to the trier of fact in the
case due to the lack of overlap between Dr. Cook's opinions and the
Plaintiff's allegations.
The Plaintiff's response is twofold: (1) that expert testimony on
specific causation is not required where, as in the case, the
physical symptoms complained of are temporary and within a
layperson's common knowledge; and (2) that Dr. Cook's Daubert
methodology is sufficient to establish general causation. Regarding
this latter contention, she argues that Dr. Cook has thoroughly
analyzed the relevant scientific epidemiological literature such as
the Coast Guard Cohort and the GuLF STUDY and that Dr. Cook does
address the requisite harmful exposure level data. Additionally,
she chides the Defendants for allegedly obstructing the ability of
researchers to conduct a proper analysis of the oil spill by
allegedly preventing the recording of certain dermal and biological
monitoring data. Finally, she disagrees with the Defendants'
argument that there is not sufficient overlap between the health
effects addressed in Dr. Cook's report and the health effects she
alleged.
Judge Vitter concurs with the other sections of the Court that have
addressed this issue and found Dr. Cook's failure to address the
level of harmful dosage of each relevant chemical to be ultimately
fatal to his report. At no point in his report does Dr. Cook
adequately identify what level of exposure to the chemicals present
in the oil is capable of producing the harmful health effects
alleged by the Plaintiff. Indeed, as numerous Sections of the Court
have pointed out, Dr. Cook does not even specify the exact
chemicals that the Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to, let alone
provide evidence regarding the level of exposure at which the
Plaintiff's symptoms might manifest.
Because she finds that Dr. Cook's Report fails to demonstrate the
"minimal facts necessary to sustain the Plaintiff's burden in a
toxic tort case," i.e., the harmful exposure level, Judge Vitter
does not find it necessary to address the Defendant's other
arguments as to why the Report should be excluded. Accordingly, she
finds that Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying as an expert
on general causation in this matter.
Dr. Cook's Report is the Plaintiff's sole expert opinion on general
causation. Because Judge Vitter finds it appropriate to exclude the
Report for failure to comport with the Daubert standards for
reliability, the Plaintiff accordingly lacks expert testimony on
general causation. Without expert testimony, which is required to
prove general causation, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a
genuine dispute of material fact as to her claims that her injuries
were caused by exposure to oil. "When a plaintiff has no expert
testimony to prove his medical diagnosis or causation at trial, the
plaintiff's suit may be dismissed at the summary judgment stage."
Thus, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted
as the Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law due
to the Plaintiff's failure to establish causation.
Accordingly, Judge Vitter grants the Defendants' Daubert Motion to
Exclude and their Motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff's
claims against the Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5yt5evbk from Leagle.com.
BP EXPLORATION: Court Excludes Cook Expert Testimony in Fuller Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT FULLER v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET
AL., SECTION D (2), Civil Action No. 13-5372 (E.D. La.), Judge
Wendy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana issued an order granting the following motions filed
by Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America
Production Co., BP p.l.c., Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.,
Transocean Holdings, LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and
Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.:
a. the Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of
Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; and
b. the Motion for Summary Judgment.
The case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico in 2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf
Coast. On January 11, 2013, United States District Judge Carl J.
Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out
of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon
Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "MSA").
However, certain individuals, referred to as "B3" plaintiffs,
either opted out of or were excluded from the MSA. Fuller opted out
of the MSA and, accordingly, is a B3 plaintiff.
Mr. Fuller filed this individual action against the Defendants on
April 19, 2013 to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a
result of the oil spill. For approximately 11 months in 2010, he
worked as a beach cleanup worker, tasked with cleaning up oil and
oil-covered debris from the beaches and coastal areas in Fourchon
Beach, Louisiana.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' negligence and
recklessness in both causing the Gulf oil spill and subsequently
failing to properly design and implement a clean-up response caused
him to suffer myriad injuries including breathing problems, blurred
vision, digestive problems, high blood pressure, skin irritation,
tooth loss, impotency, muscular weakness, and memory loss.
Specifically, he seeks to recover economic damages, personal injury
damages -- including damages for past and future medical expenses
and for pain and suffering -- punitive damages, and attorneys'
fees, costs, and expenses.
To help support his claims that exposure to the chemicals present
in the oil spilled by the Defendants caused his particular health
symptoms, the Plaintiff offers the report and testimony of Dr.
Jerald Cook. Dr. Cook is a retired Navy physician with expertise
specifically as an occupational and environmental physician. His
Report is not tailored directly to the Plaintiff's claims; rather,
his generic causation report has been utilized by numerous B3
plaintiffs, including many plaintiffs currently before the Court as
well as in other cases before other sections of this court.
Accordingly, Dr. Cook's Report pertains only to general causation
and not to specific causation.
The Defendant filed the instant Motions on July 11, 2022. In their
Daubert Motion in Limine, they contend that Dr. Cook's report
should be excluded as it is both unreliable and unhelpful to the
trier of fact. They primarily point to the opinions of other
sections of the Court which have excluded this very same Report on
grounds of unreliability to suggest that the Court should likewise
exclude the Report. Further, the Defendants contend that Dr. Cook's
specific methodology is unreliable and that he failed to establish
the harmful level of exposure to the chemicals the Plaintiff
allegedly was exposed to at which harmful health effects occur.
Next, because Dr. Cook should be excluded to testify, the
Defendants argue, the Court should grant their Motion for Summary
Judgment as the Plaintiff is unable to establish general causation
through expert testimony, a necessary requirement under controlling
Circuit precedent.
The Plaintiff disputes the Defendants' characterization of Dr.
Cook's Report. He argues that Dr. Cook utilized a proper
methodology in conducting his general causation analysis and that
he thoroughly explained his methods. Further, he argues that the
Report does provide adequate harmful exposure level data for each
health condition he exhibited and that to the extent that Dr. Cook
is unable to provide more specific exposure-level data, it is the
fault of Defendants for improperly restricting access to scientific
research teams to gather such data. Finally, the Plaintiff contends
that expert testimony is not necessary for a transient symptom
case. Further, in his opposition to the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment, the Plaintiff points to orders from other
sections of the Court which concluded that expert testimony may not
be required to establish symptoms within the common knowledge of
lay people.
The Defendants argue that Dr. Cook's Report should be excluded for
five principal reasons: (1) Dr. Cook's failure to verify the
Plaintiff's alleged medical conditions; (2) Dr. Cook's failure to
follow the proper causation-analysis methodology; (3) Dr. Cook's
failure to adequately evaluate the relevant scientific
epidemiological literature; (4) Dr. Cook's failure to identify the
harmful level exposure for each and every chemical that the
Plaintiff alleges to have been exposed to; and (5) Dr. Cook's
failure to make his opinions helpful to the trier of fact in this
case due to the lack of overlap between Dr. Cook's opinions and the
Plaintiff's allegations.
The Plaintiff's response is twofold: (1) that expert testimony on
specific causation is not required where, as here, the physical
symptoms complained of are temporary and within a layperson's
common knowledge; and (2) that Dr. Cook's Daubert methodology is
sufficient to establish general causation. Regarding this latter
contention, he argues that Dr. Cook has thoroughly analyzed the
relevant scientific epidemiological literature such as the Coast
Guard Cohort and the GuLF STUDY and that Dr. Cook does address the
requisite harmful exposure level data. Additionally, the Plaintiff
chides the Defendants for allegedly obstructing the ability of
researchers to conduct a proper analysis of the oil spill by
allegedly preventing the recording of certain dermal and biological
monitoring data. Finally, he disagrees with the Defendants'
argument that there is not sufficient overlap between the health
effects addressed in Dr. Cook's report and the health effects he
alleged.
Judge Vitter concurs with the other sections of the Court that have
addressed this issue and found Dr. Cook's failure to address the
level of harmful dosage of each relevant chemical to be ultimately
fatal to his report. At no point in his report does Dr. Cook
adequately identify what level of exposure to the chemicals present
in the oil is capable of producing the harmful health effects
alleged by the Plaintiff. Indeed, as numerous Sections of the Court
have pointed out, Dr. Cook does not even specify the exact
chemicals that the Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to, let alone
provide evidence regarding the level of exposure at which his
symptoms might manifest.
Because she finds that Dr. Cook's Report fails to demonstrate the
"minimal facts necessary to sustain the Plaintiff's burden in a
toxic tort case," i.e., the harmful exposure level, Judge Vitter
does not find it necessary to address the Defendant's other
arguments as to why the Report should be excluded. Accordingly, she
finds that Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying as an expert
on general causation in this matter.
Dr. Cook's Report is the Plaintiff's sole expert opinion on general
causation. Because Judge Vitter finds it appropriate to exclude the
Report for failure to comport with the Daubert standards for
reliability, the Plaintiff accordingly lacks expert testimony on
general causation. Without expert testimony, which is required to
prove general causation, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a
genuine dispute of material fact as to his claims that his injuries
were caused by exposure to oil. "When a plaintiff has no expert
testimony to prove his medical diagnosis or causation at trial, the
plaintiff's suit may be dismissed at the summary judgment stage."
Thus, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted
as the Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law due
to the Plaintiff's failure to establish causation.
Accordingly, Judge Vitter grants the Defendants' Daubert Motion to
Exclude and their Motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff's
claims against the Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2yvdwuxp from Leagle.com.
BP EXPLORATION: Court Excludes Cook's Testimony in Maurras Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOUG MAURRAS v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET
AL., SECTION D (5), Civil Action No. 17-3185 (E.D. La.), Judge
Wendy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana grants the Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation
Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook, and the Motion
for Summary Judgment both filed by Defendants BP Exploration &
Production Inc., BP America Production Co., BP p.l.c., Halliburton
Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Holdings, LLC, Transocean
Deepwater, Inc., and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.
The case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico in 2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf
Coast. On Jan. 11, 2013, District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who
presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the
Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical
Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "MSA"). However,
certain individuals, referred to as "B3" plaintiffs, either opted
out of or were excluded from the MSA. Maurras opted out of the MSA
and, accordingly, is a B3 plaintiff.
Mr. Maurras filed this individual action against the Defendants on
April 11, 2017 to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a
result of the oil spill. For approximately seven months in 2010,
the Plaintiff worked as a boat captain and as a beach cleanup
worker, tasked with cleaning up oil and oil-covered debris from the
beaches and coastal areas in Orange Beach, Alabama, and Pensacola,
Florida.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' negligence and
recklessness in both causing the Gulf oil spill and subsequently
failing to properly design and implement a clean-up response caused
him to suffer myriad injuries including vomiting, exhaustion,
disorientation, pains, chills, overheating, inability to swallow
saliva, food, or water, difficulty walking or thinking, difficulty
urinating, and "ferengitis." Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks to
recover economic damages, personal injury damages -- including
damages for past and future medical expenses and for pain and
suffering -- punitive damages, and attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses.
To help support his claims that exposure to the chemicals present
in the oil spilled by Defendants caused his particular health
symptoms, the Plaintiff offers the report and testimony of Dr.
Cook. Dr. Cook is a retired Navy physician with expertise
specifically as an occupational and environmental physician. Dr.
Cook's Report is not tailored directly to the Plaintiff's claims;
rather, Dr. Cook's generic causation report has been utilized by
numerous B3 plaintiffs, including many plaintiffs currently before
the Court as well as in other cases before other sections of this
court. Accordingly, Dr. Cook's Report pertains only to general
causation and not to specific causation.
The Defendant filed the instant Motions on July 11, 2022. In their
Daubert Motion in Limine, the Defendants contend that Dr. Cook's
report should be excluded as it is both unreliable and unhelpful to
the trier of fact. They primarily point to the opinions of other
sections of the Court which have excluded this very same Report on
grounds of unreliability to suggest that it should likewise exclude
the Report. Further, they contend that Dr. Cook's specific
methodology is unreliable and that he failed to establish the
harmful level of exposure to the chemicals the Plaintiff allegedly
was exposed to at which harmful health effects occur. Next, because
Dr. Cook should be excluded to testify, the Defendants argue, the
Court should grant their Motion for Summary Judgment as the
Plaintiff is unable to establish general causation through expert
testimony, a necessary requirement under controlling Circuit
precedent.
The Plaintiff disputes the Defendants' characterization of Dr.
Cook's Report. He argues that Dr. Cook utilized a proper
methodology in conducting his general causation analysis and that
he thoroughly explained his methods. Further, he argues that the
Report does provide adequate harmful exposure level data for each
health condition exhibited by him and that to the extent that Dr.
Cook is unable to provide more specific exposure-level data, it is
the fault of Defendants for improperly restricting access to
scientific research teams to gather such data. Finally, the
Plaintiff contends that expert testimony is not necessary for a
transient symptom case. Further, in his opposition to the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, he points to orders from
other sections of the Court which concluded that expert testimony
may not be required to establish symptoms within the common
knowledge of lay people.
The Defendants argue that Dr. Cook's Report should be excluded for
five principal reasons: (1) Dr. Cook's failure to verify the
Plaintiff's alleged medical conditions; (2) Dr. Cook's failure to
follow the proper causation-analysis methodology; (3) Dr. Cook's
failure to adequately evaluate the relevant scientific
epidemiological literature; (4) Dr. Cook's failure to identify the
harmful level exposure for each and every chemical that Plaintiff
alleges to have been exposed to; and (5) Dr. Cook's failure to make
his opinions helpful to the trier of fact in this case due to the
lack of overlap between Dr. Cook's opinions and the Plaintiff's
allegations.
The Plaintiff's response is twofold: (1) that expert testimony on
specific causation is not required where, as here, the physical
symptoms complained of are temporary and within a layperson's
common knowledge; and (2) that Dr. Cook's Daubert methodology is
sufficient to establish general causation. Regarding this latter
contention, he argues that Dr. Cook has thoroughly analyzed the
relevant scientific epidemiological literature such as the Coast
Guard Cohort and the GuLF STUDY and that Dr. Cook does address the
requisite harmful exposure level data. Additionally, he chides the
Defendants for allegedly obstructing the ability of researchers to
conduct a proper analysis of the oil spill by allegedly preventing
the recording of certain dermal and biological monitoring data.
Finally, he disagrees with the Defendants' argument that there is
not sufficient overlap between the health effects addressed in Dr.
Cook's report and the health effects he alleged.
Judge Vitter concurs with the other sections of the court that have
addressed this issue and found Dr. Cook's failure to address the
level of harmful dosage of each relevant chemical to be ultimately
fatal to his report. At no point in his report does Dr. Cook
adequately identify what level of exposure to the chemicals present
in the oil is capable of producing the harmful health effects
alleged by the Plaintiff. Indeed, as numerous Sections of the Court
have pointed out, Dr. Cook does not even specify the exact
chemicals that the Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to, let alone
provide evidence regarding the level of exposure at which the
Plaintiff's symptoms might manifest.
Because she finds that Dr. Cook's Report fails to demonstrate the
"minimal facts necessary to sustain the Plaintiff's burden in a
toxic tort case," the harmful exposure level, Judge Vitter does not
find it necessary to address the Defendant's other arguments as to
why the Report should be excluded. Accordingly, she finds that Dr.
Cook should be excluded from testifying as an expert on general
causation in this matter.
Dr. Cook's Report is the Plaintiff's sole expert opinion on general
causation. Because Judge Vitter finds it appropriate to exclude the
Report for failure to comport with the Daubert standards for
reliability, the Plaintiff accordingly lacks expert testimony on
general causation. Without expert testimony, which is required to
prove general causation, he has failed to demonstrate a genuine
dispute of material fact as to his claims that his injuries were
caused by exposure to oil. "When a plaintiff has no expert
testimony to prove his medical diagnosis or causation at trial, the
plaintiff's suit may be dismissed at the summary judgment stage."
Thus, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted
as the Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law due
to the Plaintiff's failure to establish causation.
Accordingly, Judge Vitter grants the Defendants' Daubert Motion to
Exclude and their Motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff's
claims against the Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4bw78bty from Leagle.com.
BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Lee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KATHY LEE v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET
AL., SECTION D (5), Civil Action No. 17-4407 (E.D. La.), Judge
Wendy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana issued an order granting the following motions filed
by Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America
Production Co., BP p.l.c., Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.,
Transocean Holdings, LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and
Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.:
a. the Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of
Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; and
b. the Motion for Summary Judgment.
The case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico in 2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf
Coast. On Jan. 11, 2013, District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who
presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the
Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical
Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "MSA"). However,
certain individuals, referred to as "B3" plaintiffs, either opted
out of or were excluded from the MSA. Lee opted out of the MSA and,
accordingly, is a B3 plaintiff.
Ms. Lee filed this individual action against Defendants on May 1,
2017, to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of
the oil spill. For approximately eighteen months from 2010 until
2012, he worked as a cleanup worker, tasked with cleaning up oil
and oil-covered debris from the beaches and coastal areas
throughout Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' negligence and
recklessness in both causing the Gulf oil spill and subsequently
failing to properly design and implement a clean-up response caused
her to suffer myriad injuries including rashes, contact dermatitis,
blistering, itching, skin irritation, burning nose and throat,
headaches, watery eyes, coughing, nausea, dizziness, vertigo, and
ringing ears. Specifically, she seeks to recover economic damages,
personal injury damages -- including damages for past and future
medical expenses and for pain and suffering -- punitive damages,
and attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.
To help support her claims that exposure to the chemicals present
in the oil spilled by Defendants caused her particular health
symptoms, the Plaintiff offers the report and testimony of Dr.
Cook. Dr. Cook is a retired Navy physician with expertise
specifically as an occupational and environmental physician. His
Report is not tailored directly to the Plaintiff's claims; rather,
his generic causation report has been utilized by numerous B3
plaintiffs, including many plaintiffs currently before the Court as
well as in other cases before other sections of this court.
Accordingly, Dr. Cook's Report pertains only to general causation
and not to specific causation.
The Defendant filed the instant Motions on July 11, 2022. In their
Daubert Motion in Limine, they contend that Dr. Cook's report
should be excluded as it is both unreliable and unhelpful to the
trier of fact. They primarily point to the opinions of other
sections of the Court which have excluded this very same Report on
grounds of unreliability to suggest that this Court should likewise
exclude the Report. Further, the Defendants contend that Dr. Cook's
specific methodology is unreliable and that he failed to establish
the harmful level of exposure to the chemicals the Plaintiff
allegedly was exposed to at which harmful health effects occur.
Next, because Dr. Cook should be excluded to testify, Defendants
argue, the Court should grant their Motion for Summary Judgment as
the Plaintiff is unable to establish general causation through
expert testimony, a necessary requirement under controlling Circuit
precedent.
The Plaintiff disputes the Defendants' characterization of Dr.
Cook's Report. He rgues that Dr. Cook utilized a proper methodology
in conducting his general causation analysis and that he thoroughly
explained his methods. Further, he argues that the Report does
provide adequate harmful exposure level data for each health
condition he exhibited and that to the extent that Dr. Cook is
unable to provide more specific exposure-level data, it is the
fault of the Defendants for improperly restricting access to
scientific research teams to gather such data. Finally, the
Plaintiff contends that expert testimony is not necessary for a
transient symptom case. Further, in her opposition to the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiff points to
orders from other sections of the Court which concluded that expert
testimony may not be required to establish symptoms within the
common knowledge of lay people.
Judge Vitter concurs with the other sections of the court that have
addressed this issue and found Dr. Cook's failure to address the
level of harmful dosage of each relevant chemical to be ultimately
fatal to his report. At no point in his report does Dr. Cook
adequately identify what level of exposure to the chemicals present
in the oil is capable of producing the harmful health effects
alleged by the Plaintiff. Indeed, as numerous Sections of the Court
have pointed out, Dr. Cook does not even specify the exact
chemicals that the Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to, let alone
provide evidence regarding the level of exposure at which his
symptoms might manifest.
Because she finds that Dr. Cook's Report fails to demonstrate the
"minimal facts necessary to sustain the Plaintiff's burden in a
toxic tort case," i.e., the harmful exposure level, Judge Vitter
does not find it necessary to address the Defendant's other
arguments as to why the Report should be excluded. Accordingly, she
finds that Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying as an expert
on general causation in this matter.
Dr. Cook's Report is the Plaintiff's sole expert opinion on general
causation. Because Judge Vitter finds it appropriate to exclude the
Report for failure to comport with the Daubert standards for
reliability, the Plaintiff accordingly lacks expert testimony on
general causation. Without expert testimony, which is required to
prove general causation, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a
genuine dispute of material fact as to her claims that her injuries
were caused by exposure to oil. "When a plaintiff has no expert
testimony to prove his medical diagnosis or causation at trial, the
plaintiff's suit may be dismissed at the summary judgment stage."
Thus, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted
as the Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law due
to the Plaintiff's failure to establish causation.
Accordingly, Judge Vitter grants the Defendants' Daubert Motion to
Exclude and their Motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff's
claims against the Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ycxk3uzb from Leagle.com.
CAPITAL JAZZ: Class Action Lawsuit Over COVID-19 Ticket Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Taylor at wjla.com reports that a class-action lawsuit has
just been filed against Capital Jazz for lack of refunds to
customers on a 2022 cruise canceled due to COVID-19 following an
exclusive 7News I-Team investigation.
Capital Jazz is well known in the DMV for its annual Capital Jazz
Fest held in Columbia, Md. It's also known for its Jazz-inspired
super cruises each year.
It's already selling tickets for its 2023 The Super Cruise XV.
The 7News I-Team first told you about the lack of refunds for
canceled super cruises in 2021 and a January 2022 cruise in an
investigation we aired in July 2021. Capital Jazz told cruisers
refunds would arrive in 90 days.
7News introduced you to a group of disappointed cruisers months
ago.
"How much money are we talking about that you were out right now?"
asks 7News Investigator Scott Taylor.
"Almost $6,000," said Gina Kyle.
"I'm out $4,200," said Karen Morris from Bala Cynwyd,
Pennsylvania.
"$4,239," said Tahira, who lives in Claymont, Delaware.
Capital Jazz has refunded some of its customers including many of
our viewers featured in our original story.
After our investigation aired on television, dozens of additional
viewers have come forward asking for a refund including those who
live in Las Vegas, Atlanta and Florida.
"My husband booked this cruise as a Christmas gift to me. We were
very excited and scheduled to sail in January of 2022," said
Jerelyn Denson, who lives in Chicago.
Denson is seeking a refund through a class action lawsuit filed in
U.S. District Court in Maryland. She's out more than $5,000.
"There have been at least 20-30 attempts to contact them regarding
the refund to no avail," added Denson.
Capital Jazz's business address leads to a house in Clarksville,
Md. Cliff Hunte, the owner of Capital Jazz, has declined our
multiple requests for an on-camera interview.
Capital Jazz did tell the BBB earlier this year:
"We received more refund requests than expected so the process is
taking longer than originally planned."
In the lawsuit, Denson's legal team, Sauder & Schelkopf, point out
approximately 146 complaints against Capital Jazz have been filed
with the Better Business Bureau and state an overwhelming majority
haven't received a refund.
7News is aware of 33 complaints filed with the Maryland Attorney
General's Office, of which four have been closed. [GN]
CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Suit Seeks to Certify Client Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CRAGO, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CHARLES SCHWAB &
CO., INC., and CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, Case No.
3:16-cv-03938-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Lead Plaintiff Robert Wolfson and
Scott Posson move the Court for an Order:
1. Certifying the following Class:
"All clients of Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. or The Charles
Schwab Corporation between July 13, 2011 and December 31,
2014 who placed one or more non-directed equity orders
during the Class Period that were routed to UBS
Securities, LLC by Schwab pursuant to the Equities Order
Handling Agreement. Excluded from the Class are the
officers, directors, and employees of Schwab.
2. Appointing Plaintiffs Wolfson and Posson as Class
Representatives;
3. Appointing Lead Counsel Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., and counsel for Plaintiff
Posson, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, as Class Counsel; and
4. Granting such other and further relief the Court may deem
just and proper.
The Charles Schwab Corporation is an American multinational
financial services company. It offers banking, commercial banking,
investing and related services including consulting, and wealth
management advisory services to both retail and institutional
clients.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 23, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y3zr42 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
580 California Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 568-2124
Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com
eagel@bespc.com
- and -
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Jonathan Rotter, Esq.
Garth Spencer, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
jrotter@glancylaw.com
gspencer@glancylaw.com
- and -
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: ekorsinsky@zlk.com
- and -
Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
Alexander A. Krot III, Esq.
1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 115
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 524-4290
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com
akrot@zlk.com
CLEVELAND AVE: Hogan, et al., Seek to Certify Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jessica Hogan, et al., On
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. Cleveland
Ave. Restaurant, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02883-ALM-EPD(S.D.
Ohio), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order
conditionally certifying this as a collective action and
authorizing them to send to the following similarly situated
employees notice of the claims asserted against the defendants:
"All non-owner, non-employer exotic dancers who worked at any
of defendants' strip clubs at any time from May 14, 2014 to
the present
(1) while such club
(a) has used the Entertainer Tenant System created and
disseminated by Defendant Greg Flaig, or
(b) has required its dancers to sign and abide by the
Entertainer Tenant Space Lease Agreement created and
disseminated by Defendant Greg Flaig, or
(c) has otherwise formally regarded its dancers as
leasing space at such club as entertainers and
required them to acknowledge the same, and
(2) while such club did not pay any wages to its dancers."
The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to certify this as a class
action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
Article II, Section 34a of the Ohio Constitution, with a class
consisting of the same class members.
In addition, the plaintiffs request that defendants be ordered not
to retaliate against any dancer for opting into or otherwise
participating in this action and, to facilitate this
non-retaliation, that opt-ins be filed under seal.
The Plaintiffs are suing six strip clubs, their owners and
managers, two strip club trade associations, and Greg Flaig. Flaig
is the architect of the "Entertainer Tenant System" adopted by the
six strip clubs and the creator of the "Entertainer Tenant Space
Lease Agreement" used by them.
The Plaintiffs sue on behalf of all dancers who have worked at a
club under Flaig's "Entertainer Tenant System," who have been
subject to his "Entertainer Tenant Space Lease Agreement," or whose
club otherwise regarded them as tenants leasing space at the club
as entertainers.
As a consequence of using Flaig's Tenant System, his Lease
Agreement, and/or treating their dancers as tenants leasing space,
these clubs have not paid any wages to their dancers and in fact
have exacted from them unlawful fees, including "rent," for the
privilege of dancing at their clubs. Employees are entitled to
protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and analogous
state wage and hour laws, including Article II, Section 34a of the
Ohio Constitution, as well as Ohio's Prompt Pay Act.
This case satisfies both the "similarly situated" standard for
"conditional certification" under the FLSA and Rule 23's
requirements for class certification.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 26,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LUKDph
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul M. De Marco, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Fifth Floor
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
E-mail: pdemarco@msdlegal.com
- and -
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 604-8759
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: Awaits Mag. Judge's Ruling on Rodriguez Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
CPI Aerostructures Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 29, 2022, that the hearing to
consider final approval of the consolidated class action lawsuit
captioned Rodriguez v. CPI Aerostructures, Inc., et al., No.
20-cv-01026 was held last September 9, 2022, and the Company is now
awaiting the magistrate judge's decision on whether to recommend
final approval of the settlement.
As previously disclosed, a consolidated class action lawsuit
(captioned Rodriguez v. CPI Aerostructures, Inc., et al., No.
20-cv-00982) has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against the Company, Douglas
McCrosson; the Company's former Chief Executive Officer; Vincent
Palazzolo, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer; and the
two underwriters of the Company's October 16, 2018 offering of
common stock, Canaccord Genuity LLC and B. Riley FBR.
The Amended Complaint in the action asserts claims on behalf of two
plaintiff classes: (i) purchasers of the Company's common stock
issued pursuant to and/or traceable to the Company's offering
conducted on or about October 16, 2018; and (ii) purchasers of the
Company's common stock between March 22, 2018 and February 14,
2020. The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act"), by negligently permitting false and
misleading statements to be included in the registration statement
and prospectus supplements issued in connection with its October
16, 2018 securities offering. The Amended Complaint also alleges
that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC, by making false and
misleading statements in the Company's periodic reports filed
between March 22, 2018 and February 14, 2020. Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, including interest; rescission or
a rescissory measure of damages; unspecified equitable or
injunctive relief; and costs and expenses, including attorney's
fees and expert fees.
On February 19, 2021, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint. Plaintiff submitted a brief in opposition to the motion
to dismiss on April 23, 2021.
On May 20, 2021, the parties reached a settlement in the amount of
$3,600,000, subject to court approval. On July 9, 2021, Plaintiff
filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement. On November 10, 2021, a magistrate judge recommended
that the Court grant the motion for preliminary approval in its
entirety.
The Court adopted the recommendation on May 27, 2022, and entered
an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement on June 7,
2022.
On August 5, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for
final approval. The magistrate judge held a hearing on the final
approval motion on September 9, 2022, and is now deciding whether
to recommend final approval of the settlement.
As of June 30, 2022, the Company has previously paid or accrued to
its financial statements covered expenses totaling $750,000, and
have therefore met its insurance carrier's director' and officers'
retention requirement, which caps the Company's expenses pertaining
to the class action suit.
At June 30, 2022, in order to reflect the amounts owed from the
Company's directors' and officers' insurance carrier and to the
Plaintiffs, the Company has recorded to its balance sheet a
litigation settlement obligation of $3,600,000 and an insurance
recovery receivable of $3,500,693 to reflect the liability owed by
the Company to the Plaintiffs as well as the amount receivable
owing from the Company's insurance carrier to the Company with
respect to the settlement obligation.
Founded in 1980, CPI Aerostructures, Inc. is an aviation and
aerospace firm producing structural aircraft assemblies, servicing
the commercial and military sector of the aircraft industry. The
company is based in Edgewood, New York.
ENVOY AIR: $300,000 Deal in Biometric Privacy Suit Gets Prelim. OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
bloomberglaw.com reports that Envoy Air Inc. will pay $300,000 to
settle a class action alleging the airline collected fingerprints
and hand prints from workers in violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.
The settlement, to be distributed among 350 class members, was
given preliminary approval by Judge Andrea R. Wood of the US
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Plaintiffs Maysoun Abudayyeh and Chelsea Burrow alleged in the
lawsuit that Envoy, an American Airlines Group subsidiary, violated
the BIPA by collecting their biometric information for its
timekeeping system without obtaining written consent. [GN]
FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE: Court Junks Bid to Dismiss Aboah SAC
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aboah v. Fairfield
Healthcare Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00763-SVN (D.
Conn.), the Hon. Judge entered an order:
-- denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss Second Amended
Complaint (SAC); and
-- directing them to answer the SAC by October 7, 2022.
The Court finds that the 2015 Rule is a reasonable interpretation
of the FLSA that does not constitute an improper departure from
past DOL policy. Accordingly, the 2015 Rule is entitled to Chevron
deference, and the Court declines Defendants' invitation to
invalidate it. Because the 2015 Rule precludes Defendants from
availing themselves of the companionship and live-in exemptions,
and because these exemptions form the basis for the Defendants'
dismissal arguments with respect to both the FLSA and CMWA claims
in the SAC, the Court must reject Defendants' request for
dismissal.
The Plaintiffs Gwendoline Aboah and Tania Stewart, who were
employed as live-in home health aides by Fairfield Healthcare, have
brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and
the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (CMWA)
The Plaintiffs allege, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, that the Defendants failed to accurately record
hours worked by their employees and failed to properly compensate
the employees for overtime.
The Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiffs' action, claiming that
Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Specifically, the Defendants dispute the validity of a
U.S. Department of Labor rule providing that third party employers
may not avail themselves of the so called "companionship" and
"live-in" exemptions from the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime
requirements.
The Defendants contend that, because the 2015 Rule constitutes an
unreasonable interpretation of the exemptions, it is entitled to no
deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and, as a result, the Court
should interpret the exemptions on its own to find that they apply
to third party employers such as the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs argue that, because the 2015 Rule should be upheld
as a reasonable interpretation of the exemptions, Defendants are
not exempt from the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime requirements.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SlRZo2 at no extra charge.[CC]
FIRST TRANSIT: Wins Bid to Stay Woods Case Pending Disposition
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES WOODS, et al., v.
FIRST TRANSIT, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00739-CEF (N.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Charles E. Fleming entered an order granting the
Defendant's motion to stay the case pending the disposition of
Brooke Clark, et al. v. A&L Home Care & Training (Case No. 22-3101
(6th Cir.).
The parties shall jointly contact the Court's deputy clerk within
fourteen (14) days of the final disposition of that matter to set a
mutually agreeable date for a status conference.
First Transit is an American transportation company. Headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio, First Transit operates over 300 locations,
carrying more than 350 million passengers annually throughout the
United States in 39 states, Puerto Rico, Panama, India and four
Canadian provinces.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fmi5Zp at no extra charge.[CC]
FISKAA LLC: Hizmo Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime Under FLSA & NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Aheron Hizmo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in
the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. Fiskaa, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-08444 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated and statutory damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) ad the New York
State Labor Law.
Plaintiff Hizmo was employed as a design engineer at Defendant's
MEP and design company from March 2020 through and including July
2022.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42 nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
GLOBAL MEDICAL: Discriminates Workers Based on Religion, Disability
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC) v. GLOBAL MEDICAL
RESPONSE, INC., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02544-REB (E.D. Colo.,
Sept. 29, 2022) is a class action under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and
Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended
(ADA) to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of
religion and disability and to provide appropriate relief to
Ravinder Singh, James E. Richard, Menachem Mendel Abramowitz,
Robert Glaspy, Jamaal Bryant, Derek E. Allen, Jesus Fequiere and a
class of similarly-situated applicants and employees who were
adversely affected by such practices.
EEOC alleges that Global Medical Response, Inc., American Medical
Response, Inc., and AMR's 134 subsidiaries engaged in intentional
discrimination against Singh, Richard, Abramowitz, Glaspy, Bryant
and a class of similarly-situated applicants and employees when it
failed to hire them, discharged them, retaliated against them,
and/or failed to accommodate their sincerely-held religious beliefs
in violation of Title VII, and engaged in intentional
discrimination against Bryant, Allen, Fequiere, and a class of
similarly-situated applicants and employees when it failed to hire
them, discharged them, and/or failed to accommodate their
disabilities in violation of the ADA.
The Defendants include AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC., AMERICAN
PATHWAYS, INC. (DE), PROVIDACARE, LLC (TX), AMERICAN MEDICAL
RESPONSE AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (CA), HEMET VALLEY AMUBLANCE SERVICE, INC.
(CA), HERE ENTERPRISES, INC. (CA), JJDAC, LLC (DE) d/b/a MEDSTAR
AMBULANCE, LIFECARE AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., MEDIC ONE OF COBB,
INC. (GA), MERCY, INC. (NV), AMERICAN INVESTMENT ENTERPRISES, INC.
(NV), MERCY LIFE CARE (CA), PUCKETT AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. (GA),
TEK AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. f/k/a TEK, INC. (IL), AMERICAN MEDICAL
RESPONSE MANAGEMENT, INC. (DE), REGIONAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, LP
(DE), A-1 LEASING, INC. (FL), RESCUE CARE, INC. (FL), AMERICAN
MEDICAL RESPONSE MID- ATLANTIC, INC. (PA), AMERICAN MEDICAL
RESPONSE DELAWARE VALLEY, LLC (DE), AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE OF
COLORADO, INC. (DE), INTERNATIONAL LIFE SUPPORT, INC. (DE),
AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE OF GEORGIA, INC. (DE), TROUP COUNTY
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. (GA), AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE OF
INLAND EMPIRE (CA), DESERT VALLEY MEDICAL TRANSPORT, INC. (CA),
AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC. (MA), AMR
BROCKTON, LLC (DE), AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE WEST (CA),
METROPOLITAN AMBULANCE SERVICE (CA), AMR BAYSTATE, LLC (DE),
COMMUNITY EMS, INC. (DE), EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, INC.
(MA), MARLBORO HUDSON AMBULANCE & WHEELCHAIR SERVICE, INC. (MA),
VITAL ENTERPRISES, INC. (MA), AMR OF CENTRAL TEXAS I, LLC (DE), AMR
OF CENTRAL TEXAS II, LLC (DE), METROCARE SERVICES-ABILENE, L.P.
(TX), ATLANTIC AMBULANCE SERVICES ACQUISTION, INC. (DE), MEDICS
SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES, INC. (FL), GILA HOLDCO, LLC (DE), COMMUNITY
AUTO AND FLEET SERVICES, LLC (DE), COMTRANS, INC. (DE), COMTRANS OF
OREGON, LLC (DE), GRACE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, LLC (DE), SSAG, LLC
(DE), GMR INTERNATIONAL, INC. (DE), HANK'S ACQUISITION CORP (DE),
MEDLIFE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE, INC. (AL), FOUNTAIN AMBULANCE
SERVICE, INC. (AL), MEDI-CAR SYSTEMICS, INC. (FL), MEDI-CAR
AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. (FL), MISSION CARE SERVICES, LLC (MO),
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES OF BREVARD, INC. (FL), TMS
MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. (FL), GREATER PINELLAS TRANSPORTATION,
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. (FL), ACCESS2CARE, LLC (MO), MISSION CARE
OF ILLINOIS, LLC (IL), MISSION CARE OF MISSOURI, LLC (MO), ABBOTT
AMBULANCE, INC. (MO), NEVADA RED ROCK HOLDINGS, INC. (DE), NEVADA
RED ROCK AMBULANCE, INC. (DE), MEDICWEST HOLDINGS, INC. (DE),
MEDICWEST AMBULANCE, INC. (NV), PARAMED, INC. (MI), MERCY AMBULANCE
OF EVANSVILLE, INC. (IN), TIDEWATER AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. (VA),
RANDLE EASTERN AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. (FL), MEDICS AMBULANCE
SERVICE (DADE), INC. (FL), SEAWALL ACQUISITION, LLC (DE), VIP
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. (CA), GOLD COAST AMBULANCE (CA),
SPRINGS AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. (CA), BLYTHE AMBULANCE SERVICE
(CA), ADAM TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, INC. (NY), AIR AMBULANCE
SPECIALISTS, INC. (CO), ALLIANCE AMBULANCE OF ARIZONA, LLC (DE),
AMBULANCE ACQUISITION, INC. (DE), AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE
HOLDINGS, INC. (DE), AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE HPPP, LLC (DE),
AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE NORTHWEST, INC. (OR), AMERICAN MEDICAL
RESPONSE OF COCHISE COUNTY, LLC (DE), AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE OF
CONNECTICUT, INC. (CT), AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE OF ILLINOIS, INC.
(DE), AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE OF MARICOPA, LLC (DE), AMERICAN
MEDICAL RESPONSE OF NEW YORK, LLC (NY), AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE
OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. (DE), AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE OF
OKLAHOMA, INC. (DE), AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE OF PIMA, LLC (DE),
AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC. (DE), AMERICAN
MEDICAL RESPONSE OF TENNESSEE, INC. (DE), AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE
OF TEXAS, INC. (DE), AMR ALL-TRANSIT LLC (DE), AMR-LGA OF
TENNESSEE, LLC (DE), ASSOCIATE AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. (NY),
ATLANTIC/KEY WEST AMBULANCE, INC. (DE), ATLANTIC/PALM BEACH
AMBULANCE, INC. (DE), BROWARD AMBULANCE, INC. (DE), EMS OFFSHORE
MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC (DE), FIVE COUNTIES AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC.
(NY), FLORIDA EMERGENCY PARTNERS, INC. (TX), GMR EVENT SERVICES,
LLC (DE), GUARDIAN CRITICAL CARE SERVICES, LLC (IL), KURTZ
AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. (WI), KURTZ INDUSTRIAL FIRE SERVICES, INC.
(IL), KURTZ MUNICIPAL DISPATCHING SERVICES, INC. (IL), KURTZ
PARAMEDIC SERVICE, INC. (IL), KURTZ SPECIAL EVENTS SERVICES, INC.
(IL), KUTZ AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. (WI), LIFE GUARD INTERNATIONAL,
INC. (NV), LIFE LINE AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. (AZ), LIFEFLEET
SOUTHEAST, INC. (FL), MEDEVAC MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC. (MO), MEDEVAC
MIDAMERICA, INC. (MO), MEDIC ONE AMBULANCE SERVICES, INC. (DE),
MEDICS AMBULANCE, INC. (FL), MEDICS AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. (FL),
MEDICS EMERGENCY SERVICES OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, INC. (FL), MEDICS
TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC. (FL), MEDSTAT EMS, INC. (MS), METRO
AMBULANCE SERVICE (RURAL), INC. (DE), METRO AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC.
(DE), METRO AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. (GA), MIDWEST AMBULANCE
MANAGEMENT COMPANY (DE), MOBILE MEDIC AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. (DE),
PARK AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. (NY), PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS AMBULANCE
SERVICES, INC. (OH), RIVER MEDICAL INCORPORATED (AZ), SAN DIEGO 911
LLC (DE), SEMINOLE COUNTY AMBULANCE, INC. (DE), STAT HEALTHCARE,
INC. (DE), SUNRISE HANDICAP TRANSPORT CORP. (NY), VIRGINIA MEDICAL
TRANSPORT, LLC (DE), AND WESTMED AMBULANCE, INC. (CA).[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven A. Wagner, Esq.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
Atlanta District Office
100 Alabama St., SW, Suite 4R30
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (470) 531-4838
Facsimile: (404) 562-6905
E-mail: steven.wagner@eeoc.gov
GOFUND ADVANCE: Haymount, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAYMOUNT URGENT CARE PC,
ROBERT A. CLINTON, JR., individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, v. GOFUND ADVANCE, LLC, FUNDING 123, LLC,
MERCHANT CAPITAL LLC, ALPHA RECOVERY PARTNERS, LLC, YITZCHOK WOLF,
JOSEF BREZEL, JOSEPH KROEN, AND YISROEL C. GETTER, Case No.
1:22-cv-01245-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order granting their class certification bid pursuant to FRCP
Rule 23.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 23, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rg87M2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shane R. Heskin, Esq.
Alex D. Corey, Esq.
WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP
7 Times Square, STE 29
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (215) 864-7000
E-mail: heskins@whiteandwilliams.com
The Defendants are represented by
Edward Normand, Esq.
Velvel Freedman, Esq.
Kyle W. Roche, Esq.
Richard Cipolla, Esq.
Kelvin Goode, Esq.
ROCHE FREEDMAND LLP (Via ECF)
99 Park Avenue, 19 th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (646) 350-0527
E-mail: tnormand@rochefreedman.com
GOOGLE LLC: Violates NY Video Consumer Privacy Act, Alleges Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
consumerelectronicsdaily.com reports that YouTube "unlawfully
retains information" that identifies consumers "as having requested
or obtained specific video materials or services from Google," in
violation of the New York Video Consumer Privacy Act, alleged a
class action (docket 5:22-cv-05713) in U.S. District Court in San
Jose. Google maintains the digital records in violation of New York
law, which requires video rental companies to destroy personally
identifiable information (PII) "as soon as practicable" but no
later than one year from the date the information is no longer
necessary for the purpose for which it was collected, said the
complaint. [GN]
GRAPHICS SERVICE: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA & NYLL, Flores Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN FLORES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated V. GRAPHICS SERVICE BUREAU, INC. d/b/a GSB DIGITAL,
STEPHAN STEINER and TROY STEINER, Case No. 1:22-cv-05937-RPK-JRC
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2022) seeks to recover statutory damages for
failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, GSB failed to pay Plaintiff for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at the rate of one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay. For example, for the period
April 26, 2022 to May 10, 2022, Defendant GSB paid Plaintiff for
92.50 hours at his regular rate of $18 per hour and for 13.96 hours
at his overtime rate of $27 per hour. For the period July 11, 2022,
to July 25, 2022, Defendant GSB paid Plaintiff for 88.58 hours at
his regular rate of $18 per hour and 14.88 hours at his overtime
rate of $27 per hour.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant GSB as a non-exempt
custodial worker from in or about December 2021 to in or about
August 2022. The Plaintiff's job duties included but were not
limited to cleaning, painting, changing vents, mopping, buffing
floors, receiving cargo deliveries, and using pallet jacks to move
paper and production material.
The Defendant is a full service print and litigation support
provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, New York 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com
GROENDYKE TRANSPORT: Brown Seeks to Certify Coordinator Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY BROWN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GROENDYKE
TRANSPORT INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00549-J (W.D. Okla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying
the class, and authorizing Plaintiffs to send the notices, to the
following group of similarly situated individuals defined as:
"All individuals who have been employed as logistics
coordinators by Groendyke in the United States at any time in
the three-year period prior to the filing of this lawsuit,
who were paid a salary for all hours worked, including hours
worked in excess of 40 each workweek."
The Plaintiffs and Collective Members worked for the Defendant
Groendyke as logistics coordinators. They were not exempt from the
protections afforded to employees under the Fair Labors Standards
Act (FLSA). They were improperly classified by the Defendant as
exempt employees and were paid on a salary basis for all hours
worked. As such, they did not get paid overtime for any hours
worked over 40 in a workweek, the lawsuit says.
Groendyke instead maintained a uniform practice of misclassifying
its logistics coordinators as exempt employees and paying these
employees straight-time for all hours worked, including the hours
worked over 40 in each workweek. This practice flagrantly violates
the FLSA, the lawsuit adds.
Groendyke is a trucking company that provides logistics services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 26,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rjNVbV
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
Allison H. Peregory, Esq.
HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: 817-479-9229
Facsimile: 817-840-5102
E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
pamela@herrmannlaw.com
aperegory@herrmannlaw.com
- and -
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Matthew Thomson, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
mthomson@llrlaw.com
osavytska@llrlaw.com
- and -
Jeff A. Taylor, Esq.
State Bar No. 17210
The Offices at Deep Fork Creek
5613 N. Classen Blvd
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Telephone: (405) 286-1600
Facsimile: (405) 842-6132
HUNDREDS IS HUGE: Murphy Seeks Final OK of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY HAMMOND MURPHY, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE
HUNDREDS IS HUGE, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00204-RAL (W.D. Pa.),the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting final approval
of the parties' class action settlement agreement.
The Plaintiff requests that the Court certify the class for
settlement purposes, approve the settlement as fair, reasonable,
and adequate.
The Defendant does not oppose the relief sought in this motion, the
Plaintiff says.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 26, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UTtf8b at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq.
Chandler Steiger, Esq.
Stephanie Moore, Esq.
EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
Pittsburgh, PA 15208
Telephone: (412) 877-5220
E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com
- and -
Lawrence H. Fisher, Esq.
One Oxford Centre
301 Grant Street, Suite 270
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 577-4040
E-mail: lawfirst@lawrencefisher.com
HURRICANE SHUTTER: Milanes Seeks Reconsideration of Dismissal Order
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO MILANES v.
HURRICANE SHUTTER PROS LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-22588-DPG
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider the Order
of September 26, 2020, dismissing the case without prejudice for
failure to comply with the Court's Orders Requiring Joint
Scheduling Report and Proposed Scheduling Order.
The court ordered the Scheduling Report and Proposed Scheduling
Order on August 17, 2022. The Plaintiff sent an email with the
proposed order to Defense counsel on August 19, 2022.
The Defendant failed to respond to the email. The court then issued
an Order to Show Cause on September 15, 2022 regarding same as the
requested document was not filed.
The Plaintiff wrote to defense counsel immediately with a copy of
and received a response confirming that the submitted document
could be filed.
The Plaintiff contends that having to go through the delay of
refiling in state court, incurring additional filing fees and
service expense as well as incurring significant delay would be
manifestly unjust as Plaintiff believes that plaintiff did comply
with the Order.
The Plaintiff believes that it is possible that the court did not
receive the email sent to comply with [DE 15] and this
was a simple oversight. The Plaintiff does not believe that such
error was committed to justify a dismissal of the complaint without
prejudice and humbly requests that the court allow the matter to
proceed without dismissal.
Hurricane Shutter is a home improvement company specializing in the
manufacturing and installation of accordion shutters.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 26, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RsqJTN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel H. Hunt, Esq.
E-mail: dhuntlaw@gmail.com
Miami, FL 33256
Telephone: (305) 495-5593
The Defendants are represented by
Adi Amit, Esq.
ADI AMIT, P.A.
101 Center
101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 300
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
E-mail: adi@defenderofbusiness.com
IKON PASS: Ticket Holders Will Get Court-Ordered Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Meyer at denverpost.com reports that skiers and snowboarders
who had Ikon Passes when the ski industry was shut down by the
pandemic are receiving compensation offers after the resolution of
a class-action lawsuit.
Emails went out to those who lost a chunk of the season when Gov.
Jared Polis shut down the Colorado ski industry on March 15, 2020,
due to COVID-19.
In August, Denver-based Alterra Mountain Company agreed to pay more
than $17 million in pass credits as a settlement of the lawsuit. A
third party based in Philadelphia, Angeion Group, is managing
distribution of the settlement.
"It has been turned over to this Angeion Group, who handles the
logistical (details) of the settlement," said Kristin Rust,
spokeswoman for Alterra Mountain Company. "They are the settlement
administrator. We don't have anything to do with it. Passholders
need to contact Angeion."
The amount of credit available to pass holders will depend on how
much they used their season passes during the 2019-20 season. Those
who skied on their Ikon Pass only once that season will be entitled
to a $150 credit. Those who skied twice will receive a $125 credit,
and so on: three times, $100; four times, $50; five or six days,
$25; seven or more days, $10.
Credits can be applied toward the purchase of Ikon Pass products
for next season or the following season. They also can be applied
to lift ticket vouchers. Attorneys in the case had argued that pass
holders deserved refunds. [GN]
KONA COFFEE: Settlement in Mislabeling Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kendall Heebink at lawstreetmedia.com reports that an order was
issued in the Western District of Washington at Seattle granting a
motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement. The
settlement was reached between a class, led by Bruce Corker,
against defendant L&K Coffee Co. The complaint alleged that the
defendants had violated the Lanham Act when they labeled coffee not
from the Kona region of Hawaii as Kona coffee.
The class of plaintiffs are all coffee farmers who inhabit the Kona
region of Hawaii and grow the entirety of the world's supply of
Kona coffee. The defendants in this suit, including L&K,
purportedly misleadingly used labeling on their products which
indicated their coffee was Kona coffee, when it was not from the
plaintiff's Kona region of Hawaii. The plaintiffs cited scientific
testing in their complaint which confirmed that the coffee
contained little to no authentic Kona coffee.
The settlement details that defendant L&K will alter its misleading
labeling and pay penalties of $6.15 million. The plaintiff's motion
for settlement approval asserts that the class counsel and
settlement class representatives have fulfilled their duties, the
settlement is a product of arm's length negotiations, that the
relief for the class is substantial, and the class members receive
equitable relief in relation to each other.
The motion contended that "this settlement will deliver a
substantial monetary payment to class members and also provide for
valuable injunctive relief that will benefit the members of the
settlement class and prevent future economic harm."
The court entered favorable judgment in regard to the settlement
and determined it to be "fair, reasonable, and adequate, entered
into in good faith, and free collusion."
The class is represented in the suit by Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein and Karr Tuttle Campbell. L&K was represented by Hatton,
Petrie & Stackler, Savitt Bruce & Willey, Lane Powell, Atkins
Intellectual Property, and Andrews Skinner. [GN]
LEMON CREEK: Lawyer Frustrated by Tactics in 2013 Fuel Spill Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Boivin at pentictonherald.ca reports that a lawyer
representing victims of the 2013 fuel spill into Lemon Creek says
he's disappointed with the Province's response to their
class-action lawsuit.
"It is regrettable that the defendants, including British Columbia,
are playing such hardball with a class of fuel spill victims on the
mere procedural question of whether their claims can be heard
together under the Class Proceedings Act," says David Aaron.
Aaron was in court on September 8, appearing before the BC Court of
Appeal for the second time on the question of whether the victims
of the fuel spill represented a class of people who can seek
damages as a whole. A judge had already ruled once that it could
proceed as a class action, but that was appealed to the higher
court. On that court's direction, the judge adjusted his ruling in
May 2021 and re-certified the class action -- only to have it
appealed by the defendants in the case again.
"Basically the Court of Appeal told the chamber judge to do
something, and he did it," explains Aaron. "And the second appeal
is whether he did it properly."
The original lawsuit stems from the July 2013 spill of 35,000
litres of jet fuel into Lemon Creek by a transport driver making a
delivery to a firefighting operation. The spill forced the
evacuation of thousands of people living up to 40 kilometres
downstream in the Slocan Valley.
The spill also killed fish and forced residents to get alternate
sources of drinking water for themselves and livestock for days.
Residents who were affected by the spill launched the suit for
damages. And since then, Aaron says the Province and other
defendants have been using their deep pockets to delay justice for
residents seeking damages.
"it is all about access to justice and judicial economy, and the
Province knows this," he told the Valley Voice. "It's disappointing
the Province is creating such an uphill climb for the residents of
the Slocan Valley, who to this day, over nine years after the
spill, have not been compensated for their evacuation costs.
"You would think that at least the Province would be more
supportive of class proceedings as a vehicle to advance public
interest litigation on behalf of an injured community."
He also says it's ironic because Kootenay West MLA Katrine Conroy
was a vocal advocate for timely compensation when in Opposition.
"Now that she is in government, she has been reticent and has
ostensibly failed to see this matter through to settlement on
behalf of her constituents," he says.
Wheels turn slowly
The Court of Appeal could throw out the second application before
them, allowing the class action suit to move forward to trial. Or,
they could direct the lower-level court to take another crack at
determining if it is a proper class action. In either case,
however, the end result is more delays to the suit.
"The last appeal, the hearing date was October 15 of 2018, and the
judgement was issued the following April of 2019," he says. "That
gives you a yardstick for how long the court might ruminate over
this matter before issuing judgement."
Aaron says they have already lost people who moved the case
forward, like Marilyn Burgoon, who launched the historic case in
the first place. The community activist died in December 2019.
"The wheels of justice turn slowly, lawyers are used to that, but I
don't' expect the community to be accepting of that and I don't
think they should be." [GN]
LG ELECTRONICS: Brito Sues Over Defective Ranges' Control Knobs
---------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO BRITO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC. and LG ELECTRONICS INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-05777 (D.N.J., Sept. 29, 2022) is a class action involving
the Plaintiff and the Class who are purchasers of LG electric
ranges that include dangerous latent defects in the design of their
front-mounted burner control knobs that make the Ranges susceptible
to unintentional activation.
According to the complaint, the control knobs on the Ranges are
prone to, and do, depress and rotate as a result of minor,
inadvertent contact. When the knobs on the Ranges are accidentally
and inadvertently contacted, the Ranges activate without warning to
the consumer. This unintentional activation of the Ranges' cooktops
in turn creates a hazardous condition and serious risk of fire,
property damage, and personal injury. The defective condition of
the Ranges is the result of the low detent force and tiny distance
the burner control knobs need to travel to be turned to the "on"
position, which is inadequate to prevent unintentional activation.
In other words, the ease with which the knobs can be pushed in and
rotated without resistance fails to prevent the Ranges from being
activated inadvertently, says the suit.
Since at least 2021, LG has known that its Ranges were susceptible
to unintentional activation through numerous complaints submitted
by consumers to LG directly via product reviews. Because the
existence of the Defect was concealed by LG, Plaintiff and the
Class were deceived and deprived of the benefit of their bargain. A
range that turns on without a consumer's knowledge has no value
because it cannot be used safely. Alternatively, the Ranges have
far less value than promised at the point of sale, because a range
prone to unintentional activation, and the attendant risk of harm,
is much less valuable than one that operates safely, says the
suit.
Mr. Brito purchased the Range for personal, family, or household
use. Mr. Brito uses, and at all times has used, his Range in a
normal and expected manner.
LG Electronics is a South Korean multinational corporation located
in Seoul, South Korea. LGEI designs, manufactures, and distributes
Ranges for sale in this jurisdiction. LGEI's "North American
subsidiary" is in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan M. Feldman, Esq.
Edward S. Goldis, Esq.
Zachary Arbitman, Esq.
FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER
TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP
1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 567-8300
Facsimile: (215) 567-8333
E-mail: afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com
egoldis@feldmanshepherd.com
zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com
- and -
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Marie N. Appel, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
711 Van Ness Ave, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
mappel@forthepeople.com
LIVING WELL: Howard Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Howard v. Living Well
Homes LLP, et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-01818-DCC (D.S.C.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) conditionally certifying an FLSA
collective composed of, and facilitating the sending of written
notices to:
"all current and former non-exempt maintenance employees who
worked in a Living Well Homes community in the United States
between the date that is three years prior to the date
that the Court issues an Order granting Conditional
Certification] and the present (the FLSA Collective)."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 23,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SofmgX
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Christian Blake, Esq.
Jenkins McMillan Mann, Esq.
Philip Wesley Jackson, II, Esq.
ROGERS LEWIS JACKSON MANN AND
QUINN LLC
1901 Main Street, Suite 1200
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 256-1268
Facsimile: (803) 252-3653
E-mail: sblake@rogerslewis.com
jmann@rogerslewis.com
wjackson@rogerslewis.com
- and -
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
Reginald L. Streater, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: scarson@bm.net
crodriguez@bm.net
rstreater@bm.net
MANITOBA: $1B Class Action Suit Filed Over Child Welfare System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Devon McKendrick at CTVNewsWinnipeg.ca reports that a $1 billion
class-action lawsuit has been filed in the Court of King's Bench
against the Government of Manitoba and the Attorney General of
Canada related to the child welfare system in Manitoba.
The suit has been filed by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs (AMC)
and the First Nations Family Advocate Office, alleging the system
failed the children, their families and their First Nations.
"Before colonization, it would be unthinkable to remove a child
from their family, nation, lands and culture. The lawsuit is
necessary to hold governments accountable for the harm they have
caused for decades," said Cornell McLean, the deputy Grand Chief of
the AMC.
Cora Morgan is the First Nations Family Advocate with the AMC and
she said since she took the role seven years ago, the consistent
message she has heard is the system is breaking the bond between
mother and child.
"We work to repair the harms of the child welfare system. We work
to reunite families. We have been successful at reuniting or
preventing the apprehension of over 4,300 children. However, there
are still more children in the system. There is so much damage that
has been done that we cannot undo," said Morgan.
She said the outcomes for children in care include homelessness,
incarceration and mental health issues, negative aspects she says
most Canadians don't have to deal with.
"This is very important that we are taking these steps because it's
finally giving a voice to those youth and to those parents and to
our nations. Because our most vulnerable citizens have been stolen
for decades, arguably over 150 years we've had the issue of stolen
children in this land."
Morgan said in this age of reconciliation, there needs to be
accountability and the systems should have been fixed a long time
ago, adding no more damage can be done.
The lawsuit covers children living off reserve going back to 1992
who were apprehended by Child and Family Services and placed into
foster care in Manitoba.
The time period marks the end of the Sixties Scoop settlement
process but lawyers for the plaintiffs said it's also when
governments were given fair warning about the impacts of the child
welfare system.
The Misipawistik Cree Nation, Black River First Nation and
Pimicikamak Cree Nation and three people who've had involvement
with the system are also named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
"I'm bringing this case because I believe that no child should grow
up away from the love and care of their family," said Roberta
Godin, who's one of the plaintiffs, during a news conference held
by AMC.
Another one of the plaintiffs, Amber Laplante, spoke of her own
experiences.
"When I was in care I was exposed to violence and trauma," Laplante
told the news conference. "I was always treated as a problem and
never as a person. I never received the support I needed to heal."
The legal team for the lawsuit said there are over 11,000 children
in the child and family services system and of those children,
approximately 80 per cent are First Nations. They added that 61 per
cent of children in the northern authority and 75 per cent of
children in the southern authority were taken into the system
off-reserve, which falls under provincial jurisdiction.
This move comes after the federal government settled two
class-action cases related to the child welfare system with the
Assembly of First Nations that totalled $20 billion.
Rochelle Squires, Manitoba's Families Minister, told reporters the
government is aware of the lawsuit but couldn't comment on it
specifically as it's now before the courts.
"But what I can say is our government recognizes there is a need
for transformation in the CFS system," Squires said. "That is why
we have eliminated the practice of issuing birth alerts and have
since achieved a 65 per cent reduction in the apprehension of
newborns."
"We are committed to achieving systemic reform so that families can
be reunified where possible and that we can prevent children from
coming into care in the first place."
CTV News has reached out to the federal government and is awaiting
a response. [GN]
MARK ALLEN: Healey Seeks Conditional Status of Instructor Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON HEALEY, and all
others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), v. MARK
ALLEN, Case No. 3:22-cv-01035-MMH-LLL (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
moves the Court to conditionally certify the following collective
of similarly situated Instructors:
"All Instructors who worked for Mark Allen in Florida who
were required to undergo a training period during the
previous three years."
The Plaintiff worked with dozens of similarly situated Instructors
who performed identical duties and were required to complete a
training period at the inception of their employment in which they
worked more than 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff filed this collective action lawsuit seeking to
recover wages from Defendant based on violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), for failure to pay proper overtime wages to
himself and all other Instructors during their training period. The
Defendant requires Instructors to work more than 40 hours in a
workweek during their initial training period without compensating
them applicable federal overtime wages.
The Defendant owns and operates a driving school that provides
instructional services throughout Florida in at least 23 locations.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 23, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UP4biM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-
JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
JORDAN RICHARDS, ESQUIRE
E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
MDL 2827: Final OK of $310M Class Deal in Apple Device Suit Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, IN RE APPLE INC. DEVICE PERFORMANCE LITIGATION. NAMED
PLAINTIFFS AND SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS, Plaintiff-Appellee v.
SARAH FELDMAN; HONDO JAN, Objectors-Appellants v. APPLE INC.,
Defendant-Appellee. IN RE APPLE INC. DEVICE PERFORMANCE LITIGATION.
NAMED PLAINTIFFS AND SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS, Plaintiff-Appellee
v. BEST COMPANIES, INC., Objector-Appellant v. APPLE INC.,
Defendant-Appellee. IN RE APPLE INC. DEVICE PERFORMANCE LITIGATION.
NAMED PLAINTIFFS AND SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS, Plaintiff-Appellee
v. DEBORAH PANTONI, Objector-Appellant v. APPLE INC.,
Defendant-Appellee. IN RE APPLE INC. DEVICE PERFORMANCE LITIGATION.
NAMED PLAINTIFFS AND SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS, Plaintiff-Appellee
v. ANNA ST. JOHN, Objector-Appellant v. APPLE INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, Case Nos. 21-15758, 21-15761, 21-15762,
21-15763 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit vacates the orders granting final settlement approval and
awarding fees, expenses and incentive awards, and remands for
application of the correct standard.
In this multidistrict litigation against Apple, the district court
approved a $310 million class action settlement resolving
allegations that Apple secretly throttled the system performance of
certain model iPhones to mask battery defects. The court approved
$80.6 million, representing 26% of the recovery, in fees to the
class counsel and also approved service awards to the named
Plaintiffs. Several class members who objected to these decisions
now appeal.
In January and December 2017, Apple released updates for its
iPhones' system software ("iOS") that under certain conditions
slowed the performance of certain phones. At the time of the iOS
releases, Apple acknowledged only that the updates provided
"improvements" and fixed "bugs." On Dec. 20, 2017, after
independent researchers published findings that the iOS updates
degraded system performance, Apple publicly acknowledged as much.
Apple explained that as iPhone batteries age, they become less
capable of supplying a phone's peak demands for electric current,
and that the iOS updates smoothed out a phone's electrical demands
when necessary to avoid unexpected shutdowns. The following week,
Apple disclosed that the smoothing feature affected the "the
maximum performance of some system components." However, it
insisted that "the level of perceived change depends on how much
power management is required for a particular device" and that "in
some cases, a user may not notice any differences in daily device
performance."
Following Apple's disclosures, consumers around the country filed
class action lawsuits concerning the unexpected shutdowns and iOS
updates. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated the 67 federal actions in the Northern District of
California. The Judicial Council of California coordinated the four
state court proceedings into a single action in the San Francisco
Superior Court (the "JCCP action"), which proceeded parallel to the
federal litigation.
In May 2018, the district court consolidated the individual federal
cases, and selected one of three competing proposals for the
litigation's leadership structure. It established a protocol for
attorney work and expenses that required any compensable activity
to be reasonable, non-duplicative, beneficial to the prosecution of
the multidistrict litigation, and authorized by one of three
attorneys managing the litigation. It required the Plaintiffs'
counsel to maintain contemporaneous records and provide quarterly
reports for in camera review. And it appointed a special master to
oversee the discovery process who resolved several issues during
the next two years.
In the consolidated amended complaint, a total of 122 named
Plaintiffs from every state and several territories and foreign
countries alleged 76 claims against Apple. The Plaintiffs asserted
various fraud-based theories, breach of contract, trespass to
chattels, and violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1030, California's Data Access and Fraud
Act, Cal. Penal Code Section 502, and several states' unfair
competition and consumer protection statutes.
The district court eliminated many of the claims at issue in its
rulings on Apple's two motions to dismiss. It dismissed the
Plaintiffs' claims regarding alleged battery defects but concluded
that they had viable claims relating to the iOS updates. In
particular, the court concluded that the Plaintiffs could proceed
on a "computer intrusion" theory for trespass to chattels and under
the California and federal computer fraud statutes.
In February 2020, the parties reached a settlement. The settlement
agreement resolved the claims of "all former or current U.S.
owners" of certain iPhone models that ran specified versions of iOS
by the time Apple first publicly disclosed that the iOS updates
slowed phone performance under certain conditions. The agreement
resolved not only the federal multidistrict litigation, but also
the JCCP action in California.
Apple agreed to pay $25 per eligible iPhone to settlement class
members with approved claims, subject to two limitations. First,
Apple agreed to pay the settlement class a minimum of $310 million
and a maximum of $500 million. This meant that if the number of
eligible iPhones with approved claims was less than about 12
million or more than 20 million, then the payment per device would
be proportionately more or less than $25. Second, Apple's payment
to the settlement class members was subject to a deduction for any
court-ordered attorney's fees, expenses, and service awards to the
named plaintiffs.
To receive a cash payment, the settlement class members had to
certify under penalty of perjury that "they experienced diminished
performance on an eligible device when running the applicable iOS
before Dec. 21, 2017." The class members could also opt out of the
settlement.
The district court granted preliminary approval to the settlement,
provisionally certified the nationwide settlement class, and
directed the parties to notify class members. Apple provided the
settlement administrator with the names, contact information, and
serial numbers associated with each potentially eligible device --
i.e., each device covered by the settlement that had downloaded the
applicable iOS during the relevant time period. The settlement
administrator sent 90,119,272 class notices via email and an
additional 5,617,563 notices by postcard. In all, approximately 99%
of the persons associated with potentially eligible devices
received notice of the settlement.
The settlement administrator received 3,284,985 claims by the
submission deadline and, as of January 2021, had approved 69% of
them. These response and claim approval rates meant that claimants
could receive, on average, at least $128 less any court-ordered
deduction for attorney's fees, costs, and incentive awards. In
addition, 622 persons timely opted out of the settlement.
The class counsel moved for final approval of the settlement and,
separately, for attorney's fees, expenses, and service awards for
the named Plaintiffs. At issue now, the counsel requested
attorney's fees of $87.73 million and service awards of either
$3,500 or $1,500 for each of the named Plaintiffs, the larger
amount for the nine named Plaintiffs who were deposed.
The district court received various objections to the two motions
from 144 class members. In addition, Apple opposed the requested
amount of attorney's fees as excessive, and the United States as
well as several states' attorneys general submitted briefs raising
similar concerns. At two hearings lasting a total of eight hours,
the district court heard from the parties and several objectors
about the fairness of the proposed settlement and the requested
compensation for class counsel and the named Plaintiffs.
Ultimately, the district court granted final approval to the
settlement and granted in part the class counsel's fee motion. It
approved the requested expenses and service awards, finding them to
be reasonable. However, it found that the request for attorney's
fees of $87.73 million was too high and instead awarded $80.6
million.
Five of the objectors challenge the district court's rulings in
these four consolidated appeals. In case nos. 21-15758 and
21-15762, Sarah Feldman, Hondo Jan, and Deborah Pantoni
(collectively, the "Feldman objectors") challenge the settlement
approval, the amount of attorney's fees, and the decision to grant
service awards. In case no. 21-15761, Best Companies, Inc. ("BCI")
challenges the settlement approval as it relates to nonnatural
persons. In case no. 21-15763, Anna St. John challenges the amount
of attorney's fees.
BCI contends that the district court provided inadequate notice of
the settlement to nonnatural persons. It complains that "tying the
notice solely to the Apple ID on an Affected Device focused on
notifying users of Affected Devices, but not necessarily the
owners." Similarly, BCI suggests that the parties could have
identified corporate purchasers by "subpoenaing sales records from
the major U.S. cellular carriers." Lastly, it asserts that the
parties could have given nonnatural persons constructive notice of
the settlement through publication.
The Ninth Circuit holds that the notice to nonnatural persons was
reasonable, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by
authorizing it. It finds that (i) the notice satisfied both Rule 23
and due process; (ii) BCI does not satisfactorily explain how the
settlement administrator could have provided better notice to
nonnatural persons; (iii) there is no reason to assume that
cellular carriers supply a significant share of corporate devices
and Apple does not track corporate ownership of its devices in part
because nonnatural persons purchase devices "in a variety of ways";
and (iv) the free media coverage and individual notice to device
users was more than adequate to reach nonnatural persons.
Next, for a settlement to be "fair, reasonable, and adequate," Rule
23(e) requires that "the class representatives and class counsel
have adequately represented the class," "the relief provided for
the class is adequate," and the settlement "treats class members
equitably relative to each other." The Feldman objectors contest
each of these criteria. However, most of their arguments down to
the same core complaint: the settlement extinguishes the claims of
"all former or current U.S. owners" of certain devices who
downloaded iOS software before Apple disclosed potential defects,
yet the settlement limits recovery to the subset of owners who can
attest that "they experienced" the alleged defects.
The Ninth Circuit opines that the fundamental problem with the
Feldman objectors' arguments is their assumption that "all Class
members suffered the same impairment of iPhone performance and
uniform damages." All class members who were injured by Apple's
failure to disclose the nature of the iOS updates experienced
injury during the same time frame and in the same manner. So no
conflict exists. Nor does the possibility that some class members
suffered no damages mean that they lack standing and must be
dismissed.
The Feldman objectors advance other reasons why the settlement was
unfair, such as the size of the recovery and language on the claim
form that, they argue, prevented former device owners from
recovering. The Ninth Circuit need not reach these issues. More
fundamentally, the Feldman objectors argue that the district court
"improperly applied a presumption of reasonableness" to the
settlement rather than "applying heightened scrutiny.
The Ninth Circuit explains that when granting final settlement
approval, the district court carefully considered and thoughtfully
responded to "the more serious, common, and representative
objections." But notwithstanding its careful consideration of the
settlement's fairness, the court's written order explicitly
presumed that the settlement was fair and reasonable.
The Ninth Circuit finds that the district court cited the wrong
legal standard and failed to "acknowledge longstanding circuit
precedent requiring a heightened fairness inquiry prior to class
certification. While its probing analysis suggests that it may have
applied heightened scrutiny, its written order relied on a flawed
legal standard.
Therefore, the district court abused its discretion by stating that
it applied a presumption of reasonableness and fairness to the
settlement. The Ninth Circuit vacates the order granting final
settlement approval so that on remand the district court can
evaluate the settlement under the correct standard. In light of its
vacatur of the settlement approval, the Ninth Circuit also vacates
the district court's order awarding attorney's fees, expenses, and
incentive payments. However, it addresses two issues that the
Appellants raise regarding the latter order to provide guidance in
the event the district court again approves the settlement.
The Feldman objectors contend that the district court abused its
discretion by awarding attorney's fees based in part on hours that
JCCP counsel spent on the parallel state litigation. While it
expresses no opinion as to whether the inclusion of JCCP-related
work was reasonable, the Ninth Circuit agrees with objectors that
the district court's explanation for considering JCCP-related work
conflicted with the court's overall rationale for its fee award. If
the court had excluded JCCP counsel's fees from the lodestar, then
the $80.6 million fee award would represent a multiplier of 2.51
over the lodestar of $32.1 million. That's more than even the 2.43
multiplier the court described as "high" when rejecting the class
counsel's full fee request. Thus, the impact of the JCCP fees on
the multiplier was not at all "insignificant," and the district
court's failure to consider whether the JCCP fees should be
included in the lodestar was an abuse of discretion.
The Feldman objectors also contend that district courts lack
discretion to award any service fees or incentive payments to class
representatives. The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that
"reasonable incentive awards" to class representatives "are
permitted," and the Supreme Court in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh,
138 S.Ct. 1800, 1811 n.7 (2018) acknowledged that a class
representative might receive a share of class recovery above and
beyond her individual claim" through an incentive award.
Nonetheless, the Feldman objectors contend that the twenty-first
century precedent allowing such awards conflicts with Supreme Court
precedent from the nineteenth century -- Trustees v. Greenough, 105
U.S. 527 (1881), and Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Pettus, 113
U.S. 116 (1885). To the contrary, the Ninth Circuit previously
considered this nineteenth century caselaw in the context of
incentive awards and found nothing discordant.
In class action litigation, the common fund doctrine supports
reasonable awards to a litigant or lawyer. District courts must
"evaluate the propriety of requested incentive payments" by
considering, among other factors, "the actions the plaintiff has
taken to protect the interests of the class, the degree to which
the class has benefitted from those actions, the amount of time and
effort the plaintiff expended in pursuing the litigation," and any
financial or reputational risks the plaintiff faced. The point is
that incentive awards cannot categorically be rejected or approved.
So long as they are reasonable, they can be awarded.
The Ninth Circuit concludes that the district court actively
managed this difficult litigation, which involved the consolidation
of dozens of federal lawsuits. Once the settlement was achieved
following motions practice, discovery, and months of negotiations
with the assistance of a mediator, the settlement administrator
sent over 90 million class notices via email and over 5 million
notices by postcard. About 99% of persons associated with
potentially eligible devices received notice of the settlement. The
settlement also received substantial press and social media
coverage. The Ninth Circuit finds that class members -- including
nonnatural persons -- received adequate notice of the settlement.
Any suggestion to the contrary is unsupported by the record.
The district court properly resolved most of the objections at
issue on appeal. However, in finding the settlement fair,
reasonable, and adequate, the district court committed legal error.
As the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly admonished, settlement prior to
class certification requires extra scrutiny. While it commends the
district court's thoughtful and thorough analysis, which suggests
that the court took great care in considering the terms of the
settlement, its written order explicitly states that the court
applied a presumption that the settlement was fair and reasonable.
Because the district court applied the wrong legal standard when
reviewing the settlement's fairness, the Ninth Circuit vacates the
orders granting final settlement approval and awarding fees,
expenses, and incentive awards, and it remands for application of
the correct standard. The parties will bear their own costs on
appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/29mfn6ju from Leagle.com.
Kendrick Jan (argued), Kendrick Jan APC, San Diego, California, for
Objector-Appellants Sarah Feldman and Hondo Jan.
Scott A. Kamber -- contact@kamberlaw.com -- (argued), Kamber Law
LLC, Denver, Colorado, for Objector-Appellant Best Companies, Inc.
John J. Pentz (argued), Law Offices of John J. Pentz, Sudbury,
Massachusetts; Jane L. Westfall -- jlwestfall.esq@gmail.com --
Menifee, California; for Objector-Appellant Deborah Pantoni.
Theodore H. Frank -- ted.frank@hlli.org -- (argued) and Anna St.
John -- anna.stjohn@hlli.org -- Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute,
Center for Class Action Fairness, Washington, D.C., for
Objector-Appellant Anna St. John.
Mark C. Molumphy -- mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com -- (argued), Joseph W.
Cotchett -- mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com -- and Elle D. Lewis --
mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP,
Burlingame, California; Laurence D. King, Kathleen A. Herkenhoff,
and Matthew B. Georg, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Oakland,
California; Frederic S. Fox, Donald R. Hall, and Melinda C.
Campbell, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, New York, New York; for
Plaintiff-Appellee.
Christopher Chorba -- cchorba@gibsondunn.com -- (argued), Theodore
J. Boutrous Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- and Wesley Sze --
wsze@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles,
California; Kory Hines and Catherine McCaffrey, Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, New York, New York; for Defendant-Appellee.
Brett R. Nolan, Office of the Attorney General, Frankfort,
Kentucky; Steve Marshall, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney
General, Montgomery, Alabama; Mark Brnovich, Attorney General;
Office of the Attorney General, Phoenix, Arizona; Leslie Rutledge,
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Little Rock,
Arkansas; Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney
General, Tallahassee, Florida; Jeff Landry, Attorney General,
Office of the Attorney General, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Keith
Ellison, Attorney General Office of the Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota; Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General, Lincoln, Nebraska; Aaron D. Ford, Attorney
General, Office of the Attorney General, Carson City, Nevada; Wayne
Stenehjem, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
Bismarck, North Dakota; Dave Yost, Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio; Ken Paxton, Attorney General,
Office of the Attorney General, Austin, Texas; Sean D. Reyes,
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Salt Lake City,
Utah; for Amici Curiae Kentucky, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota,
Ohio, Texas, and Utah.
Shiyang Huang, Topeka, Kansas, as pro se Amicus Curiae.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Crawford Sues Over Defective Vehicles' Battery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amir Crawford, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz Group AG f/k/a
Daimler AG, Case No. 2:22-cv-05799 (D.N.J., Sept. 30, 2022) is a
class action lawsuit by Plaintiff, and others similarly situated,
who purchased one of the Defendants' Mercedes vehicles which has a
defective battery, which drains rapidly and unexpectedly.
This alleged defect causes the battery in Mercedes vehicles to
suddenly drain, preventing the car from starting, potentially
stranding the occupants and endangering their safety. The Battery
Defect can also cause vehicle performance to suffer, including the
performance of electrical safety systems. In other words, the
Battery Defect renders the Affected Vehicles unsafe, unreliable and
undesirable, the suit says.
The Defendants knew or should have known about the existence of the
Battery Defect and its consequences, and Defendants' own technical
service bulletins referred to the Defect as a "known issue." The
Defendants knew or should have known of the Battery Defect before
Plaintiffs purchased their Affected Vehicles. While Plaintiffs
cannot know the extent of Defendants' internal design and testing
process absent discovery, it is evident from what is now publicly
available, as well as the quality controls and monitoring that
manufacturers like Mercedes undertake, that Mercedes was or should
have been aware of the Defect. For instance, owners of the Affected
Vehicles registered complaints consistent with the Battery Defect
to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"),
the suit asserts.
As a result of Defendants' alleged misconduct, Plaintiffs and other
Class Members were harmed and suffered actual damages in the form
of overpayment for their vehicles, diminished value, and expenses
related to the undisclosed Battery Defect, which Defendants have
failed to rectify.
Mr. Crawford is a resident of Plainfield, New Jersey. In 2019, Mr.
Crawford bought a 2019 Mercedes Benz CLS 450 Coupe from Ray Catena
Mercedes-Benz in Union, New Jersey. Since Mr. Crawford purchased
his Affected Vehicle, the battery has frequently unexpectedly
drained, requiring him to replace the battery twice before the end
of the expected life of the batteries since purchasing the car,
including two batteries in 2022.
MBG engineered, designed, developed, manufactured, and installed
the electrical systems in the Affected Vehicles, with knowledge of
the Battery Defect, and exported those vehicles to the United
States with the knowledge and understanding that they would be sold
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marybeth Putnick, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
E. Samuel Geisler, Esq.
Caitlyn C. Miller, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS &
OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502-5998
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
Facsimile: (850) 916-7449
E-mail: MPutnick@awkolaw.com
BAylstock@awkolaw.com
SGeisler@awkolaw.com
CMiller@awkolaw.com
MERIT ENERGY: GOP Sues Over Interest Owed on Untimely Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
GOP, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
Merit Energy Company, LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-00278-JAR (E.D. Okla.,
Sept. 30, 2022) concerns Merit's willful and ongoing violations of
Oklahoma law related to the interest owed on untimely payments of
proceeds derived from the sale of oil and gas production to those
legally entitled.
Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act requires holders of
proceeds derived from the sale of oil and gas production, like
Defendant here, to pay interest on "proceeds from the sale of oil
or gas production or some portion of such proceeds that are not
paid prior to the end of the applicable time periods provided" by
statute. The PRSA imposes automatic interest on late payments.
Compliance with the PRSA is not optional, and the statute contains
no demand requirement before an owner is entitled to statutory
interest.
According to the complaint, the Defendant knows it is bound by
statute to pay interest on late payments, but has consistently
ignored these obligations and deliberately violated Oklahoma law.
Merit does not automatically pay the interest it owes on untimely
payments of O&G Proceeds. Instead, upon information and belief, it
has a policy of only paying statutory interest when those legally
entitled thereto demand it, despite the fact that no such demand
requirement exists.
The Plaintiff brings this class action to recover damages for
itself and all similarly situated owners who received untimely
payments from Merit for which it did not pay the interest required
by the PRSA. The Plaintiff owns an oil and gas interest for which
Defendant owed a duty under Oklahoma law to timely remit proceeds
to Plaintiff.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David R. Gleason, Esq.
MORICOLI KELLOGG & GLEASON, PC
One Leadership Square
211 North Robinson, Suite 1350
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 235-3357
Facsimile: (405) 232-6515
E-mail: dgleason@moricoli.com
META PLATFORMS: Shareholders File Class-Action Over High Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
iclg.com reports that a class of diversified shareholders has filed
a class-action against Facebook parent over the "high costs that
Meta imposes on society and the economy". In what could be the
first lawsuit of its kind in the United States, a group of
shareholders has filed a class-action complaint in the Delaware
Chancery Court against Meta Platforms, the parent company of
Facebook and Instagram, claiming that the social media giant's
drive for ever-increasing profits ignores the "high costs that Meta
imposes on society and the economy" and, therefore, on
shareholders. The claim alleges that those 'high costs' include
causing such economic damage that the company is responsible for
driving down the value of shares held by the complainants in other
companies. The complaint from class representative James McRitchie,
which names CEO Mark Zuckerberg and former COO Sheryl Sandberg
among 10 board members specified in the suit, further claims that
Facebook has made the world "an angrier place" and that Zuckerberg
rejected suggestions from the company's integrity team to tweak its
algorithms so that users would see more positive content on their
feeds. [GN]
MGM RESORTS: Lucas, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EBONI D. LUCAS, JEREMY
GOARD, and SHAWNDREA STAFFORD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, THE
INTERNAL COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, THE
ADMINSTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, and JOHN DOES
1-30, Case No. 2:20-cv-01750-JAD-NJK (D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying case as class action on behalf of:
"All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family
members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
Plan, at any time between September 23, 2014 through the
date of judgment, excluding any class member who executed
an applicable release;"
2. appointing them as representatives of the proposed class;
3. appointing their counsel, Capozzi Adler, P.C., as Class
Counsel.
The Plaintiffs' ERISA claims satisfy the requirements of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b):
(1) there are more than 25 participants in the Plan;
(2) Plaintiffs are typical of the participants;
(3) common issues abound regarding the manner in which
Defendants managed the Plan’s assets; and
(4) Plaintiffs have retained experienced class counsel and
are adequate to represent the interests of the class.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 23, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3e0J8ZX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Martin L. Welsh, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF HAYES & WELSH
199 North Arroyo Grand Boulevard, Suite 200
Henderson, NV 89074
E-mail: mwelsh@lvlaw.com
Telephone: (702) 509-7310
Facsimile: (702) 434-3739
- and -
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
Gabrielle Kelerchian, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
gabriellek@capozziadler.com
NATIONWIDE CHILDREN'S: Faces Class Suit Over Labor Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Renee Fox at NPR News reports that a phlebotomist is accusing
Nationwide Children's Hospital of violating state and federal labor
laws in a class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court.
Bri'Ana Williams, who has worked there since January, filed the
suit on behalf of herself and other employees demanding unpaid
wages. The lawsuit claims employees were not paid during scheduled
meal breaks but often had to work during them.
The suit claims the breaks, usually 30 minutes long, were
automatically deducted from their hours, regardless of whether or
not they were able to take them.
Williams claims the hospital failed to pay proper overtime
compensation and violated the Fair Labor Standards Act over the
last three years
The hospital's media relation team said they cannot comment on
ongoing litigation and declined to provide a comment.
The case was filed on Sept. 28 in the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Ohio in Columbus. It hasn't yet been assigned to a
judge and the hospital has not yet responded to the complaint.
[GN]
NATIXIS INVESTMENT: Waldner Seek to Certify 401(k) Plan Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brian Waldner,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, and on behalf of The 401(k) Savings and
Retirement Plan, Sponsored by Natixis Investment Managers, L.P., v.
Natixis Investment Managers, L.P., Natixis Investment Managers,
L.P. Retirement Committee, and John and Jane Does 1- 20, Case No.
1:21-cv-10273-LTS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23:
1. certifying the following proposed class in this action (or
in the alternative, such other class(es) as the Court
may determine to be appropriate):
"All participants and beneficiaries of the 401(k) Savings
and Retirement Plan, Sponsored by Natixis Investment
Managers, LLC (f/k/a The 401(k) Savings and Retirement
Plan, Sponsored by Natixis Investment Managers, L.P., and
The 401(k) Savings and Retirement Plan, Sponsored by
Natixis Global Asset Management) on or after February 18,
2015 who were invested in funds that were affiliated at
any time with Natixis, excluding any persons with
responsibility for the Plan’s investment or administrative
functions;"
2. appointing him as the class representative for the class;
and
3. appointing his counsel as class counsel (Nichols Kaster,
PLLP as lead counsel and Block & Leviton LLP as local
counsel).
Natixis offers investment solutions from high-conviction, high-
active-share investment managers for institutions and professional
investors.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 26,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3e090W4
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
Brock J. Specht, Esq.
Jacob T. Schutz, Esq.
Patricia C. Dana, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
E-mail: lukas@nka.com
bspecht@nka.com
jschutz@nka.com
pdana@nka.com
- and -
Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
E-mail: jason@blockesq.com
NEW ORIENTAL: Consolidated Securities Suit Still in Prelim. Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
New Oriental Education and Technology Group Inc. disclosed in its
Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2022, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2022, that
the consolidated securities class captioned In re New Oriental
Education & Technology Group Inc. Securities Litigation, No.
1:22-CV-01014, remains in its preliminary stage.
Beginning in February 2022, the Company and certain officers and
directors were named as defendants in two related securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
In June 2022, these actions were consolidated under the caption In
re New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 1:22-CV-01014.
On September 2, 2022, Lead Plaintiff filed its amended consolidated
complaint purportedly on behalf of a class of persons who purchased
or acquired its ADSs between October 23, 2018 and July 25, 2021,
alleging that defendants' statements contained alleged
misstatements and omissions regarding its company’s business and
compliance practices in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Although the Company intends to defend against this action
vigorously, this action remains in its preliminary stage, and the
Company is unable to estimate the possible outcome or loss or
possible range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of
this case.
New Oriental is a Cayman Islands corporation headquartered in
Beijing, China. New Oriental provides private educational and
tutoring services in the People's Republic of China.
NINJARMM LLC: Court Approves Settlement Agreement in Vlack Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE VAN VLACK, v.
NINJARMM, LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-00539-SDM-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Steven D. Merryday entered an order approving settlement
agreement under Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d
1350 (11th Cir. 1982).
The settlement appears "fair and reasonable." Although the
settlement agreement contains a "waiver and release of claims," the
waiver disclaims past and present wage-related claims only.
The settlement agreement iss approved, and this action is dismissed
with prejudice. The motion o certify the class is denied as moot.
The clerk is directed to close the case, the Court says.
NinjaRMM provides software solutions. The Company offers remote
monitoring and management platform for virtual machine management
and mobile application.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BYNJDZ at no extra charge.[CC]
OLIN CORP: Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miami Products & Chemical
Co. v. Olin Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00385-EAW-MJR
(W.D.N.Y.), the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying the following classes, and appointing
class representatives and class counsel, along with such other and
further relief as this Court deems just and proper:
-- State Antitrust Class
"All persons and entities who indirectly purchased from a
distributor, and did not resell, liquid forms of membrane
or diaphragm grade caustic soda in Arizona, California,
Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the
District of Columbia manufactured by one or more of the
Defendants or their co-conspirators (or any of Defendants'
or their co-conspirators' parents, predecessors,
subsidiaries or affiliates) at any time between October 1,
2015 and December 31, 2019;"
-- Colorado Consumer Protection Class
"All persons and entities who indirectly purchased from a
distributor, and did not resell, liquid forms of membrane
or diaphragm grade caustic soda in Colorado manufactured by
one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators (or
any of Defendants' or their co- conspirators' parents,
predecessors, subsidiaries or affiliates) at any time
between October 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019;"
-- Enrichment Class
"All persons and entities who indirectly purchased from a
distributor, and did not resell, liquid forms of membrane
or diaphragm grade caustic soda in Arizona, Hawaii,
Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode
Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or
their co-conspirators (or any of Defendants' or their co-
conspirators' parents, predecessors, subsidiaries or
affiliates) at any time between October 1, 2015 and
December 31, 2019.
The following groups are excluded from all three Classes:
Defendants, their co-conspirators, parents, predecessors,
subsidiaries, and affiliates, and all federal government
entities and instrumentalities of the federal government.
Olin is an American manufacturer of ammunition, chlorine, and
sodium hydroxide. The company traces its roots to two companies,
both founded in 1892.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated Sept. 26,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LU50Tz
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, are:
Barbara J. Hart, Esq.
Chad Holtzman, Esq.
Nathan Reeder, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 722-8526
E-mail: bhart@gelaw.com
choltzman@gelaw.com
nreeder@gelaw.com
- and -
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
Justin N. Boley, Esq.
Tyler J. Story, Esq.
WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP
11 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 5450
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 312-346-2222
E-mail: kaw@wbe-llp.com
jnb@wbe-llp.com
tjs@wbe-llp.com
- and -
Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
& SPRENGEL LLP
205 N. Monroe St.
Media, PA 19063
Telephone: 215-864-2800
E-mail: emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq.
Kaitlin Naughton, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
& SPRENGEL LLP
135 S. La Salle St., Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: 312-782-4882
E-mail: jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com
knaughton@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Ryan L. Gellman, Esq.
COLUCCI & GALLAHER, P.C.
2000 Liberty Building
424 Main Street
Buffalo, NY 14202
Telephone: 716-853-4080
E-mail: rlg@cgbuffalo.com
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Defined Benefit Sues Over $43.23 Stock Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN OF THE MID-JERSEY TRUCKING INDUSTRY AND
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 701 PENSION AND ANNUITY FUND, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC.,
DANIEL SCHULMAN, and JOHN RAINEY, Case No. 3:22-cv-05864 (D.N.J.,
Oct. 4, 2022) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased PayPal common stock between
February 3, 2021, and February 1, 2022, inclusive against PayPal
and certain of its officers seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Throughout the Class Period, PayPal touted the massive growth in
its Net New Active Accounts (NNAs) and instructed investors to
value the high growth in this metric as one of the most important
indicators of how the Company was performing. That's because in
theory, the more accounts on the platform, the more opportunity
there will be to earn transaction fees from the ever-increasing
number of accounts. Also, during this period, PayPal was continuing
to lose a large portion of historical business with E-bay. Thus,
PayPal was under tremendous pressure to make up for that lost
business and show investors it could grow despite the significant
loss of its E-bay business, the suit alleges.
Indeed, PayPal was so focused on dazzling investors with
hyper-growth in its NNA metric that it continually offered, and
increasingly relied on, cash marketing incentives to customers for
new account openings. In fact, in 2021, the company offered ten
dollars to customers who opened new accounts on the platform.
The Company continually discussed and emphasized the high growth in
NNAs and provided short-term and medium target targets for the
number of new accounts. Tellingly, in February 2021, PayPal
predicted that it would add 50 million new users in 2021 and that
it would have 750 million total active customer accounts on its
platform by 2025, essentially doubling the number of active
accounts in four years. NNAs was therefore unsurprisingly a
highlighted and important component of the Company's performance
measures. In its most recent Proxy statement, it was explained that
"[T]he Compensation Committee believes that NNAs reinforces the
critical importance of growing our customer base to build for the
future. The number of NNAs is also a key operational metric that
the Company uses internally to measure ongoing performance."
Undisclosed to investors, however, and as Defendants have now
admitted, while touting its NNA growth, the Company failed to
disclose that many of the additional users acquired through its
cash account creation incentive campaigns were illusory, because
those incentive campaigns that were easily susceptible to fraud.
Specifically, PayPal failed to disclose that its aggressive cash
incentive campaigns significantly increased PayPal's susceptibility
to bot farms, that were able to systematically take advantage of
PayPal's $10.00 account opening by creating millions of
illegitimate accounts, which ultimately generated no future revenue
for the Company. Unbeknownst to investors, the Company was only
reporting the hyper-growth in NNAs the Company's unusually heavy
reliance on marketing campaigns that were easily targeted by
fraudulent actors who were not really active or profitable to the
Company, says the suit.
On these shocking disclosures, PayPal's stock price fell $43.23, or
25% in one-day, to close at $132.57 per share on February 2, 2022
– representing a $62 billion drop in market capitalization.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in market value of the Company's common stock
when the truth was disclosed, Plaintiff and other Class members
have allegedly suffered significant losses and damages.
PayPal operates one of the best-known digital payment platforms,
enabling both merchants and consumers to make digital and mobile
payments worldwide. Over 90% of the Company's revenue is generated
through fees on payment transactions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI
BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
- and -
Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
485 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 722-8501
PETROCHEM INSULATION: Court Extends Submission of Analyst Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES J. BOYUK, JR., v.
PETROCHEM INSULATION, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00124-MJH (W.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Marilyn J. Horan entered an order:
-- granting the Plaintiff's "Unopposed Motion to Extend
Plaintiff's Expert Report and/or Third Party Data Analysis
Report Deadline;" and
-- extending to Oct. 27, 2022 the Initial Case Management
-- Order and the Court's June 7, 2022 Order for the
Plaintiffs' expert and/or third-party data analyst report
as to class certification.
Petrochem operates as a petrochemical services provider.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BVDcJU at no extra charge.[CC]
PIZZA FRIENDLY: Juarez Seeks to Recover OT Premiums Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mauro Juarez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. Pizza Friendly Pizza NYC, LLC, d/b/a Friendly Gourmet
Pizza and Arturo Flores, Case No. 1:22-cv-08385 (S.D.N.Y., Sept.
30, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid wages from defendants for
overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay
as required the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The suit also seeks liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA, 29
U.S.C. sections 201 et seq., because the defendants' violations
lacked a good faith basis.
The Plaintiff further complains that he is entitled to
-- back wages for overtime work for which the defendants
willfully failed to pay overtime premium pay as required
by
the New York Labor Law sections 650 et seq. and the
supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations;
-- liquidated damages pursuant to New York Labor Law for
these
violations; and
-- statutory damages for the defendants’ violation of
the Wage Theft Prevention Act.
Friendly Gourmet Pizza owns and operates a pizza restaurant located
at 59 Nassau Street, New York, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
PUSHPAY USA: Blankers, et al., Seek Final Approval of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUDRA BLANKERS and W.B.T.
ARNOLD, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
PUSHPAY USA, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01549-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to entere an order granting final approval
of the proposed settlement agreement.
The Settlement Agreement resolves all claims in this class action
alleging Pushpay failed to pay overtime and provide statutorily
required meal and rest breaks to the company's Sales Development
Representatives (SDRs) from the time period of March 1, 2018
through June 1, 2020.
The Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement
on July 19, 2022. Since that date, notice of the Settlement has
issued and no Class Member has objected to or opted out of the
Settlement. In light of this positive reception and the tremendous
value it delivers to Settlement Class Members, including an average
settlement payment of $7,800, the Plaintiffs submit that the Court
should approve this settlement.
Pushpay provides churches and charities with a mobile application
for managing donors. To connect with churches and charities,
Pushpay employs a team of SDRs to contact potential clients.
The Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class that they seek to represent
are exempt-classified SDRs. Between March 1, 2018 and June 1, 2020,
Pushpay classified SDRs as exempt from the overtime requirements of
federal and state law and did not compensate them for hours worked
over 40 in a workweek, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiffs allege that this misclassification deprived them of
substantial overtime pay in light of the demanding schedule
required to fulfill their job duties. Pushpay is headquartered
overseas in New Zealand. As a result, Pushpay SDRs allege they
regularly took calls outside of business hours, including calls
during morning and evening commutes, over the weekend, and during
statutorily required meal breaks.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 26, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LW0HH7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew C. Rotty, Esq.
CROTTY & SON LAW FIRM, PLLC
E-mail: matt@crottyandson.com
905 W. Riverside Ave. Ste. 404
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (509) 850-7011
- and -
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Michael M. Tresnowski, Esq.
Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 West Washington St, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
mtresnowski@flsalaw.com
sabrahamson@flsalaw.com
QUALCOMM INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Consumer Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
legal500.com reports that Norton Rose Fulbright (NRF) has been
called up to a new-look legal team for Qualcomm as it defends
itself from a class action brought by UK consumer charity Which?.
The dispute hinges on a Which? claim that wireless technology
company Qualcomm breached competition law, and in doing so inflated
the royalties paid by smartphone manufacturers for Qualcomm's
technology, which in turn led to increased prices for customers.
In May this year, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) certified
the collective action, worth £480m. Which? will represent roughly
29 million consumers who purchased certain Apple and Samsung
smartphones since October 2015.
Qualcomm had previously been represented by a London-based
competition litigation team from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
namely department head Kate Vernon and of counsel Maria Campbell.
However, recent filings from the CAT show that Qualcomm is now
being advised by NRF and a Brussels-based Quinn Emanuel team.
NRF's team is comprised of head of antitrust and competition Mark
Simpson, partners Caroline Thomas and Helen Fairhead, as well as a
team of ten associates and trainees.
The new Quinn Emanuel team consists of Brussels EU competition
partner Miguel Rato, counsel Mark English, counsel Marixenia
Davilla, of counsel Athena Kontosakou, associate Hyunseok Doh and
associate Maria Belen Gravano.
Quinn Emanuel and NRF instructed Brick Court Chambers' Nicholas
Saunders KC, Mark Howard KC, Tony Singla KC, and David Bailey,
Alexandra Littlewood of Monckton Chambers and Tom Foxton of One
Essex Court.
Which? meanwhile is being advised by Hausfeld, with a team made up
of partners Nicola Boyle, Wessen Jazwari, Lucy Rigby, four
associates and a legal intern. Hausfeld instructed Jon Turner KC,
Anneli Howard KC, Michael Armitage and Ciar McAndrew, all of
Monckton Chambers.
Quinn Emanuel declined to comment. NRF has been approached for
comment. [GN]
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Patient Services Reps Win Class Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
bloomberglaw.com reports that Quest Diagnostics Clinical
Laboratories Inc. workers may proceed as a class on claims that the
company kept them from taking rest breaks, but not on a race
discrimination claim, a federal judge in California said.
Patient services representatives say the clinical laboratory
company, a Quest Diagnostics Inc. subsidiary, effectively prevented
them from properly utilizing their rest breaks and discriminated
against Black workers. The rest break allegations meet the
requirements for class certification, but the discrimination
portion of the case falls short, the US District Court for the
Southern District of California said. [GN]
RAGLAND, AL: Trammell Sues Over to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Trammell, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. TOWN OF RAGLAND, Case No. 4:22-cv-01250-CLM (N.D. Ala., Sept.
27, 2022), is brought to recover the unpaid wages owed to the
Plaintiff arising from the Defendant's willful violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours in most, if not all,
workweeks. However, the Defendant failed to compensate the
Plaintiff for all hours that he worked each week by deducting time
for a lunch break on Thursdays when the Plaintiff did not take a
lunch break. This practice resulted in the Plaintiff receiving less
than the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked and proper
overtime compensation for the hours that he worked over 40 in most,
if not all, work weeks. The Plaintiff should have been, and should
be, compensated at a rate not less than the applicable minimum wage
for all of the hours that he worked each workweek, and the
applicable overtime rate as required by the FLSA, but the Defendant
failed to so compensate the Plaintiff, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work as a non-exempt
street department worker in October 2014.
The Defendant operates different city departments located within
the Town of Ragland, Alabama.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Bernard Brannan, III, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
2317 3rd Ave North, Suite 102
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (659) 903-6013
Fax: (659) 903-6032
Email: jbrannan@forthepeople.com
- and -
Chanelle J. Ventura, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Phone: (954) 318-0268
Fax: (954) 327-3039
Email: cventura@forthepeople.com
RUMBLE INC: Discloses Subscribers' Info to Facebook, Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BUECHLER and JESSE MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. RUMBLE INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02237
(M.D. Fla., Sept. 29, 2022) is a consumer privacy class action on
behalf of subscribers to Rumble's video streaming services who
obtained video content from its website and applications and had a
Facebook account during the time Rumble used Facebook Pixel.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's systematic practice of
knowingly disclosing its subscribers' personally identifiable
information (PII) to third-party Facebook, Inc. (now known as Meta
Platforms, Inc.) without their informed, written consent violates
the Video Privacy Protection Act. While Defendant has publicly
contrasted its "neutral video platform" from the highly "partisan"
and "censored" "Big Tech" media platforms like Facebook, it uses
Facebook's tracking tool behind the scenes to systematically
collect and transmit its own subscribers' PII to Facebook to
increase its bottom line. The Defendant knowingly discloses its
subscribers' PII to Facebook through its use of the "Facebook
Pixel" or "Pixel," a programming code that Facebook makes available
to Rumble to collect granular information about its subscribers'
interactions with its websites, says the suit.
Facebook uses this information to build detailed profiles about
Rumble's subscribers that enables Rumble to serve them with
targeted advertisements on Facebook and otherwise facilitates
Rumble's use of Facebook's advertising services. The Defendant
intentionally installed the Pixel and selected the specific user
information the Pixel would collect from its subscribers and send
to Facebook, including specific videos the user accessed (via the
video's title and the URL for the video) and the user's unencrypted
and personally and publicly identifiable Facebook ID ("FID").
Finally, Defendant did not obtain or even seek the separate,
informed written consent needed for it to lawfully disclose the PII
of Plaintiffs or any other Class member, added the suit.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and all similarly situated subscribers
are "aggrieved persons" under the VPPA seeking an order enjoining
Defendant from further unauthorized disclosures of PII; awarding
actual damages no less than liquidated damages of $2,500 per
violation, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law; and any other
relief the Court deems appropriate.
Buechler has had a Facebook account, subscribed to Defendant's
digital video streaming device, and used a laptop, desktop
computer, and smart phone to access streaming video content on that
service. Martinez is a citizen and resident of New Mexico.
Founded in 2013, the Defendant owns and operates an online digital
streaming service that offers a wide range of video content in the
news, commentary, sports, entertainment, music, and cooking arenas.
Defendant's video streaming content is available on its website
(www.rumble.com) and mobile application.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nicomedes Sy Herrera, Esq.
Shawn M. Kennedy, Esq.
HERRERA KENNEDY LLP
1300 Clay Street, Suite 600
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 422-4701
E-mail: nherrera@herrerakennedy.com
skennedy@herrerakennedy.com
- and -
Christopher J. Cormier, Esq.
Hannah Crowe, Esq.
Lauren Cross, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 577-3977
E-mail: ccormier@burnscharest.com
hcrowe@burnscharest.com
lcross@burnscharest.com
RYDER SYSTEM: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Investor Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STATE OF ALASKA, ALASKA
PERMANENT FUND, THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE GENERAL EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, and THE CITY OF PLANTATION POLICE OFFICERS
PENSION FUND, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Lead Plaintiffs, v. RYDER SYSTEM, INC., ROBERT E.
SANCHEZ, ART A. GARCIA, and DENNIS C. COOKE, Case No.
1:20-cv-22109-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Lead Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. Certifying a Class of investors, defined as:
"All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly-
traded Ryder System, Inc. common stock during the period
between July 23, 2015 and February 13, 2020, inclusive and
who were damaged thereby;"
Excluded from the Class are Defendants Ryder, Robert E.
Sanchez, Art A. Garcia, and Dennis C. Cooke, present or
former executive officers of Ryder, and their immediate
family members;
2. Appointing them as Class Representatives; and
3. Appointing Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as
Class Counsel and Klausner Kaufman Jensen & Levinson as
Liaison Class Counsel.
Ryder is an American transportation and logistics company. It is
especially known for its fleet of commercial rental trucks. Ryder
specializes in fleet management, supply chain management, and
transportation management.
A copy of the Lead Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept.
23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3E6qef8 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs the State of Alaska, Alaska
Permanent Fund; the City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees'
Retirement System; and the City of Plantation Police Officers
Pension Fund, are:
Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN
& LEVINSON
Stuart A. Kaufman
7080 NW 4th Street
Plantation, FL 33317
Telephone: (954) 916-1202
Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com
stu@robertdklausner.com
The Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and the Class
John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
Adam Wierzbowski, Esq.
John Esmay, Esq.
Mathews de Carvalho, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
E-mail: johnr@blbglaw.com
adam@blbglaw.com
john.esmay@blbglaw.com
mathews.decarvalho@blbglaw.com
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Consumer Class Action Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marian Johns at Legal Newsline reports that Samsung is facing a
class action over a July data breach of its networks and servers
that exposed customers' personal information.
Roald Mark, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
filed a complaint September 19 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Samsung Electronics America
Inc., alleging negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of
privacy and other claims.
According to Mark's class action, Samsung's networks and servers
were hacked in July of 2022 which caused its customers' personal
information to be breached. Mark claims that the data breach was
the result of Samsung's failure to safeguard customers' personal
information and that the company delayed alerting its customers of
the data breach until September.
He further claims Samsung's network system was in "a condition
vulnerable to cyberattacks" and that Samsung was negligent in
failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to protect its
data systems from unauthorized intrusions according to industry
standards. Mark alleges that he and the class members now face
ongoing risk of identity theft and fraud due to their personal
information being compromised. He also alleges Samsung's actions
constitute breach of implied warranty due to the company's failure
to safeguard or implement safety measures and allowing their
personal information to be exposed to third parties.
Mark and the class seek monetary relief, interest, trial by jury
and all other just relief. They are represented by Mark Reich and
Courtney Maccarone of Levi & Korsinsky LLP in New York.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York case
number 1:22-CV-07974-VEC [GN]
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Fails to Secure Borrowers' Info, Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY GUTIERREZ, an individual, and on behalf of classes of
similarly situated individuals v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC., a New York corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-05719-SK (N.D. Cal.,
Oct. 4, 2022) is a class action for damages with respect to Samsung
and its failure to exercise reasonable care in securing sensitive
personal information including without limitation, unencrypted and
unredacted name, contact and demographic information, and date of
birth.
The Plaintiff seeks damages for herself and other similarly
situated current and former student loan borrowers, or any other
person(s) impacted in the data breach at issue, as well as other
equitable relief, including, without limitation, injunctive relief
designed to protect the very sensitive information of Plaintiff and
other Class Members.
On or September 2, 2022, Samsung notified Plaintiff and Class
Members about a widespread data breach involving sensitive PII. The
number of individuals affected has not been disclosed by Samsung,
however, because Samsung is one of the largest technology
companies, the breach could have involved hundreds of millions of
users. Samsung explained in the notice email that it discovered an
unauthorized third-party gained access to a portion of Samsung's
system. Samsung discovered that files on its network were accessed
and acquired by the unauthorized actor (Data Breach).
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and the Class Members are
at an imminent risk of identity theft. The risk of identity theft
is not speculative or hypothetical but is impending and has
materialized as there is evidence that the Plaintiff's and Class 23
Members' PII was targeted, accessed, and may have been disseminated
on the Dark Web. Moreover, Class members have suffered actual
identity theft and misuse of their data following the data breach,
says the suit.
Plaintiff Tammy Gutierrez is a resident and citizen of California,
residing in Bakersfield. Ms. Gutierrez received Samsung's An
important notice regarding customer information, on or about
September 2, 2022, by e-mail.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
Lirit A. King, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
E-Mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
lking@bradleygrombacher.com
- and -
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
Facsimile: (850) 916-7449
E-mail: baylstock@awkola
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Kelechian Sues Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Raffi Kelechian, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Case No.
22STCV30284 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 16, 2022), is
brought arising out of the recent targeted cyber-attack against the
Defendant that allowed a malicious third party to access the
Defendant's computer systems and data (the "Cyber-Attack"),
resulting in the compromise of highly sensitive personal
information belonging to millions of Plex users (the "Data
Breach").
As a result of the Cyber-Attack, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered ascertainable injury and damages in the form of the
substantial and present risk of fraud and identity theft from their
unlawfully accessed and compromised private and confidential
information lost value of their private and confidential
information, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time
reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the
Cyber-Attack.
Sensitive personal information of the Plaintiff and Class
Members—which had been entrusted to the Defendant, it officers
and agents—was compromised, unlawfully accessed, and stolen due
to the Cyber-Attack. Information compromised in the Cyber-Attack
includes the following: name, contact and demographic information,
date of birth, and product registration information (collectively,
the "Private Information").
The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless
manner. In particular, the Defendant maintained the Private
Information the Defendant's computer network in a condition
vulnerable to cyber-attacks of this type. The mechanism of the
Cyber-Attack and potential for improper disclosure of the
Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information was a known and
foreseeable risk to the Defendant, and the Defendant was on notice
that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private
Information from those risks left the Private Information in a
dangerous condition.
The Plaintiffs' and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of the Defendant's negligent conduct because the Private
Information that the Defendant collected and maintained is now in
the hands of data thieves. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these
harms on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or removed
from the network during the Cyber-Attack., says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of Los Angeles County in the State of
California.
The Defendant is a self-proclaimed global streaming media platform
with approximately 20 million users.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: 213.474.3800
Facsimile: 213.471.4160
Email: daniel@slfla.com
SAN JOSE CITY, CA: Parties Seek Dec 16 Deadline for Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NAACP of San Jose/ Silicon
Valley et al v. City Of San Jose, et al., Case No.
4:21-cv-01705-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate and ask for an
order continuing hearing on class certification and summary
judgment briefing schedule as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be
due on December 16, 2022.
2. The Defendants' opposition to class certification shall be
due on January 23, 2023.
3. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification
shall be due on February 6, 2023.
4. Hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
shall be held on February 23, 2023.
5. Dispositive motions shall be due on April 14, 2023.
6. Hearing on dispositive motions shall be held on May 25,
2023.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 23, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LWcBkd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rachel Lederman, Esq.
RACHEL LEDERMAN & ALEXSIS C. BEACH, ATTORNEYS
P.O. Box 40339
San Francisco, CA 94140-0339
Telephone: (415) 282-9300
E-mail: rachel@sfbla.com
- and -
Tifanei Ressl-Moyer, Esq.
Lauren Carbajal, Esq.
LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS OF
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
131 Steuart Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 543-9444
E-mail: tresslmoyer@lccrsf.org
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Brant Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eric R. Brant v. Schneider
National, Inc., Schneider National Carriers, Inc., Schneider
Finance, Inc., & DOE Defendants 1-10, Case No. 1:20-cv-01049-WCG
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b):
1. conditionally certifying case as FLSA collective action
and authorizing notice of the action and the right to opt-
into it to the following persons:
"All individuals who leased a truck from Schneider
Finance, Inc. and drove the leased truck for Schneider
National, Inc. or any of its subsidiary, related, or
affiliated companies pursuant to an Owner-Operator
Operating Agreement at any time during the period December
2013 to the present;" and
2. approving the proposed Notice and Opt-In Form, reminder
postcard, and Qualcomm notice, and giving class members
120 days to file their consent to sue forms with the
Court, and authorizing Plaintiff to disseminate the
notice.
Schneider National is a provider of truckload, intermodal and
logistics services. Schneider's services include regional,
long-haul, expedited, dedicated, bulk, intermodal, brokerage,
cross-dock logistics, pool point distribution, supply chain
management, and port logistics.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 22,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fvKWL6
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq.
GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC
260 Fair Street
Kingston, NY 12401
Telephone: (845) 255-9370
E-mail: msweeney@getmansweeney.com
- and -
Susan Martin, Esq.
Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
Michael M. Licata, Esq.
MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C.
4747 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Telephone: (602) 240-6900
E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com
jkroll@martinbonnett.com
mlicata@martinbonnett.com
- and -
Edward Tuddenham, Esq.
42 Ave. Bosquet
75007 Paris, France
Telephone: 33 68 479 8930
E-mail: edwardtuddenham@gmail.com
SELECTQUOTE INC: Faces Hartel Securities Suit in New York Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
SelectQuote, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the year
ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 26, 2022, that a class action lawsuit was
filed against the company alleging violations of the Exchange Act.
On August 17, 2021, a putative securities class action lawsuit
captioned "Hartel v. SelectQuote, Inc., et al.," Case No.
1:21-cv-06903 was filed against the company and two of its
executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
The complaint asserts securities fraud claims on behalf of a
putative class of plaintiffs who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of the company's common stock between February 8, 2021, and
May 11, 2021.
Specifically, the complaint alleges the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by
making materially false and misleading statements and failing to
disclose material adverse facts about the company's business,
operations, and prospects, allegedly causing the company's common
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the relevant
period. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and reimbursement
of attorneys' fees and certain other costs.
SelectQuote, Inc. is a technology-enabled, direct-to-consumer
distribution platform for insurance products and healthcare
services based in Kansas.
SELECTQUOTE INC: Faces Securities Suit in New York Court Over IPO
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SelectQuote, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the year
ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 26, 2022, that in October 7, 2021, a putative
securities class action lawsuit captioned "West Palm Beach Police
Pension Fund v. SelectQuote, Inc., et al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-08279,
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the company, two of its executive officers, and
six current or former members of the company's Board of Directors,
along with the underwriters of the company's initial public
offering of common stock.
The complaint asserts claims for securities law violations on
behalf of a putative class of plaintiffs who purchased shares of
the company's common stock (i) in or traceable to the Offering or
(ii) between May 20, 2020, and August 25, 2021.
Specifically, the complaint alleges the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by
making materially false and misleading statements and failing to
disclose material adverse facts about the company's financial
well-being and prospects, allegedly causing the company's common
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the WPB
Relevant Period.
The complaint also alleges the defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act by making misstatements and
omissions of material facts in connection with the Offering,
allegedly causing a decline in the value of the company's common
stock. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, rescission, and
reimbursement of attorneys' fees and certain other costs.
On October 15, 2021, a motion to consolidate the Hartel Action and
the WPBPPF Action was filed. Certain plaintiffs and their counsel
have moved to be appointed lead plaintiffs. Those motions are
pending before the court.
SelectQuote, Inc. is a technology-enabled, direct-to-consumer
distribution platform for insurance products and healthcare
services based in Kansas.
SESEN BIO: Securities Suit Settlement Gets Initial Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sesen Bio, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report dated September
29, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 29, 2022, that the proposed settlement of the
consolidated shareholder class action captioned In re Sesen Bio,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 1:21-cv-07025-AKH was
initially approved by the court.
On September 29, 2022, Sesen Bio, Inc. (the "Company") announced
that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued an order on September 28, 2022, granting preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement of the previously disclosed
consolidated shareholder class action captioned In re Sesen Bio,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 1:21-cv-07025-AKH (the
"Securities Litigation") in accordance with the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement that the Company disclosed in a Current
Report on Form 8-K dated August 17, 2022.
The proposed settlement of the Securities Litigation is subject to
final approval by the Court.
Information concerning the proposed settlement of the Securities
Litigation is being sent directly to potential class members by the
claims administrator and will be posted on a website to be
developed for the proposed settlement. Information contained in or
accessible through that website does not constitute part of, and is
not incorporated into, this Current Report on Form 8-K.
As disclosed on September 6, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts issued an order on September 2, 2022,
granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement of the
previously disclosed consolidated derivative lawsuits captioned In
re Sesen Bio, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No.
1:21-cv-11538, the derivative lawsuit captioned Tang v. Sesen Bio,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2281-cv-00135 and other potential related
derivative claims (collectively, the "Derivative Litigation"), in
accordance with the Stipulation of Settlement that the Company
disclosed in a Current Report on Form 8-K dated August 30, 2022.
The court has set a final settlement approval hearing for November
8, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. local time.
Sesen Bio, Inc. is a late-stage clinical company advancing
targeted
fusion protein therapeutics ("TFPTs") for the treatment of
patients
with cancer.
SHOPIFY INC: My Choice Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SHOPIFY, INC., A
CANADIAN CORPORATION, et al. case is styled as My Choice Software,
LLC, a California limited liability company, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHOPIFY, INC., A
CANADIAN CORPORATION, SHOPIFY (USA) INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION,
TASKUS INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE,
Case No. CGC22601842 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Sept.
16, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Common Counts/Open Book
Account/Collections."
Shopify Inc. -- https://www.shopify.com/ -- is a Canadian
multinational e-commerce company headquartered in Ottawa,
Ontario.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey T. Green, Esq.
QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
22974 El Toro Rd., Ste. 100
Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961
Phone: 949-458-9675
Fax: 949-458-9679
Email: jtg@quintlaw.com
SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE: Valdez Suit Seeks Conditional Class Cert.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rogelio Garcia Valdez and
Marbella Gomez on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, v. Signature Landscape, LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-02276-TC-ADM (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. Granting conditional class certification regarding the
Plaintiffs' claims under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) regarding all landscape laborer
employees who worked for the Defendant three years from
the date of the Court's order;
2. Directing the Defendant to provide a list of names of
these persons within 14 days of the Court's order along
with their last known home addresses, phone numbers, and
email addresses, all in a workable electronic format for
mailing purposes;
3. Providing the last four digits of social security numbers
for all class members whose mailed notices are returned
undeliverable so Plaintiffs can locate a viable mailing
address;
4. Approving and authorizing the Plaintiffs to send the
notice of claims and right to opt-in forms in both
English and Spanish;
5. Posting the Court approved notice in the Defendant's work
locations frequented by its landscape laborers in both
English and Spanish; and
6. Granting such other relief the Court deems just and
proper.
Signature Landscapes is a family-owned landscaping and snow removal
service provider located in Valders, Wisconsin.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 27, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rq6cEB at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
DONELON, P.C.
4600 Madison, Ste. 810
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 221-7100
Facsimile: (816) 709-1044
E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com
- and -
Ashley Atwell-Soler, Esq.
HOLMAN SCHIAVONE, LLC
4600 Madison Ave., Suite 810
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 285-1224
E-mail: AAtwell@hslawllc.com
The Defendant is represented by
Brett C. Bartlett, Esq.
Alex W. Simon, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
1075 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 2500
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 888-1875
Facsimile: (404) 724-1575
E-mail: bbartlett@seyfarth.com
asimon@seyfarth.com
- and -
Michael L. Blumenthal, Esq.
Linda A. Adeniji, Esq.
SEYFERTH BLUMENTHAL & HARRIS LLC
4801 Main Street, Suite 310
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 756-0700
Facsimile: (816) 756-3700
E-mail: mike@sbhlaw.com
linda@sbhlaw.com
SPARC GROUP: Montes Sues Over Falsely Discounted Clothing
---------------------------------------------------------
Shawnna Montes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SPARC GROUP LLC d/b/a Aeropostale, Case No.
2:22-cv-00201-TOR (E.D. Wash., Sept. 15, 2022), is brought under
the Washington Consumer Protection Act on behalf of Washington
consumers who purchased falsely discounted clothing and accessories
on the Aeropostale website and, due to Aeropostale's fraud, paid
more than they otherwise would have paid.
Aeropostale perpetrated a massive false discount advertising scheme
cross nearly all of its Aeropostale-branded products and sales
channels (i.e., on Aeropostale website and in its brick-and-mortar
stores). Specifically, Aeropostale advertised perpetual or near
perpetual website-wide and store-wide "sales" and percentage-off
discounts--typically 50% to 70% off--from Aeropostale's
self-created list prices for its products in order to trick its
customers and the general public into thinking that its products
were "on sale." Aeropostale represented its list prices, which were
advertised on its website with a slash-through (and which were
printed on the product tags affixed to the items it sold), to be
the "regular" and normal selling prices of the items. The list
prices functioned as reference prices to which the advertised
discounts were applied.
Aeropostale also advertised "free" offers such as "Buy 1 Get 1
Free" or "Buy 1 Get 2 Free," where Aeropostale represented that it
would include one or two more of a given item (or of a specified
similar item) for "free" if the customer paid the list price for
the item. Aeropostale's advertised discounts were false because
Aeropostale never or rarely offered or sold its products at the
advertised list price. Rather, Aeropostale invented inflated and
fictitious list prices in order to enable it to advertise perpetual
discounts and store-wide "sale" events to induce customers to
purchase its products. Aeropostale's "free" offers were likewise
false because Aeropostale directly recovered the cost of the "free"
items by doubling or tripling the first item's selling price to the
inflated—and otherwise never charged—list price.
Aeropostale's marketing plan was to trick its customers into
believing that the list price (which it labeled the "REGULAR PRICE"
on its website), and which it printed on its product tags, was the
regular and normal selling price for its products, and that its
products were worth this inflated list price, such that the lower
advertised "sale" price represented a special bargain.
Aeropostale's nationwide deceptive advertising scheme harmed
Washington state consumers like the Plaintiff, who purchased
falsely discounted products from Aeropostale's website.
Customers like the Plaintiff were harmed because they would not
have purchased the items at the prices they paid had they known the
items were not truly "on sale" and had not been regularly offered
at the higher list price. And in fact, the items they purchased
were not actually worth the inflated amount that Aeropostale
represented to them. Aeropostale's unlawful advertising not only
directly harmed its customers and prospective customers—it harmed
the integrity of competition in retail markets and injured honest
competitors who played by the rules, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased purportedly discounted products on the
Aeropostale website.
SPARC GROUP LLC doing business aa Aeropostale is a designer,
marketer, and retail seller of casual clothing and accessories,
targeting primarily the teen and young adult market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
Che Corrington, Esq.
HATTIS & LUKACS
11711 SE 8th St., Suite 120
Bellevue, WA 98005
Phone: 425.233.8650
Facsimile: 425.412.7171
Email: dan@hattislaw.com
pkl@hattislaw.com
che@hattislaw.com
- and -
Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
5 Greentree Centre, Suite 410
525 Route 73 N.
Marlton, NJ 08057
Phone: (856) 797-9951
Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
SPARTRONICS IRVINE: Magbag Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
---------------------------------------------------------
Dean J. Magbag, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Spartronics Irvine, LLC; Spartronics Milipitas, Inc.;
Epiqore and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 22CV402960 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., Sept. 9, 2022), is brought to seek
monetary relief against the Defendants to recover, among other
things, unpaid wages, unreimbursed business expenses, benefits,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have engaged in a systematic
pattern of wage and hour violations unfair the California Labor
Code and Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, all of
which contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair competition. The
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that The
Defendants have increased their profits by violating state wages
and hour laws by, among other things: failing to pay all wages
(including minimum wages and overtime wages); failing to provide
lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failing to
authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or provide compensation in
lieu thereof; failing to reimburse necessary business-related
costs; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
failing to pay all wages due upon separation of employments, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in California during
the Class Period.
The Defendants provide services or goods throughout
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuela Wong, Esq.
Kashif Haque, Esq.
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAWFIRM, PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 379-6250
Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
Email: icampbell@aegislawfirm.com
SPLUNK INC: Parties Seek to Modify Class Certification Schedule
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Splunk Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 4:20-cv-08600-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties file
stipulation and ask the Court to modify class certification
briefing schedule and hearing date as follows:
1. The Defendants shall file and serve their opposition to
the Motion for Class Certification no later than February
15, 2023.
2. Lead Plaintiff shall file and serve its reply in support
of the Motion for Class Certification no later than April
25, 2023.
3. The hearing on Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification shall be continued to May 18, 2023, or as
soon thereafter as is convenient for the Court.
4. This modification of the class certification briefing
schedule and hearing date will not alter the date of any
other event or deadline.
Splunk is an American software company based in San Francisco,
California, that produces software for searching, monitoring, and
analyzing machine-generated data via a Web-style interface.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 26, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dUlD4X at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: +1 (310) 819-3470
E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com
The Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension &
Relief Fund, are:
The Defendants are represented by:
Sara B. Brody, Esq.
Nicole M. Ryan, Esq.
Matthew P. Henry, Esq.
TJ Herron, Esq.
Stephen Tang, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 California St., Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 772-1200
Facsimile: (415) 772-7400
STATE FARM: Millwood Suit Wins Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gettys Bryant Millwood, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. State Farm
Life Insurance Company, Case No. 7:19-cv-01445-DCC (D.S.C.), the
Hon. Judge Donald C. Coggins, Jr. entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification:
Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), the Court certifies a class of
plaintiffs consisting of:
"all persons who own or owned a universal life insurance
policy issued by State Farm Life Insurance Company on Form-
86040 in the State of South Carolina at any time between
January 1, 1993, and December 31, 2020, inclusive," for each
of the Plaintiff's claims, except that Excluded Persons are
excluded from the class. The Court certifies the same class
of the plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) for Plaintiff's
declaratory judgment claim only.
The Court has considered the work Plaintiff's counsel has done in
identifying and investigating potential claims in this action;
counsel's experience in handling class actions, other complex
litigation, and the types of claims asserted in this action;
counsel's knowledge of the applicable law; and the resources that
counsel will commit to representing the class.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y08n5l at no extra charge.[CC]
STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Court Amends Case Management Order in Nguyen
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Duy Nguyen, on behalf of
himself and other individuals similarly situated, v. Stephens
Institute, d/b/a Academy of Art University, and DOES I through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-04195-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Jeffrey S. White entered an order amending the case management
order as follows:
Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
-- Close of Class Oct. 31, 2022 Jan. 30, 2023
Certification
Discovery
-- Deadline to File Nov. 14, 2022 Feb. 13, 2023
Motion for Class
Certification
-- Defendant's Dec. 19, 2022 March 20, 2023
Opposition:
-- Plaintiff's Reply: Jan. 16, 2023 April 17, 2023
-- Hearing on Motion March 3, 2023 May 26, 2023
for Class
Certification:
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E50tvv at no extra charge.[CC]
STRYTEN ENERGY: Munson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Munson, Brandon Ray Kubik and Jeremy McNeal, each
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
STRYTEN ENERGY, LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-01221 (D. Kan., Sept. 27,
2022), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees as a result of Defendant's policy and practice of failing to
pay the Plaintiffs a proper overtime compensation under the FLSA
within the applicable statutory limitations period.
The Plaintiffs regularly worked over forty hours per week while
employed by the Defendant. Other hourly employees worked over forty
hours in at least some weeks while employed by the Defendant. In
addition to their hourly pay, the Plaintiffs received incentive
bonuses based on production criteria ("production bonuses"). Other
hourly employees also received production bonuses. The production
bonuses were based on measurable, objective criteria. The Defendant
has deprived the Plaintiffs and other hourly employees of proper
overtime compensation for all hours worked over forty per week. The
Defendant knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its actions
violated the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs Munson is an hourly-paid Machine Operator, Kubik is
an hourly-paid Material Handler, McNeal is an hourly-paid Team
Lead, all employed by the Defendant.
The Defendant is a foreign, limited liability company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Courtney Harness, Esq.
Joanie Harp, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
Little Rock, AK 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: harness@sanfordlawfirm.com
joanie@sanfordlawfirm.com
SUPER MICRO COMPUTER: Hearing on Initial OK of Settlement Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Super Micro Computer, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 26, 2022, that the hearing on
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement was vacated by the
court in May 2022.
On February 8, 2018, two putative class action complaints were
filed against the company, the company's Chief Executive Officer,
and the company's former Chief Financial Officer in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California captioned
"Hessefort v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al.," No. 18-cv-00838
and "United Union of Roofers v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et
al.," No. 18-cv-00850).
The complaints contain allegations, claiming that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act due to
alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in public statements
regarding recognition of revenue. The court subsequently appointed
the New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York
City, Inc. Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff.
The lead plaintiff then filed an amended complaint naming the
company's Senior Vice President of Investor Relations as an
additional defendant. On June 21, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a
further amended complaint naming the company's former Senior Vice
President of International Sales, Corporate Secretary, and Director
as an additional defendant. On July 26, 2019, the company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 23, 2020, the Court
granted the company's motion to dismiss the complaint, with leave
for the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days.
On April 22, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a further amended
complaint. On June 15, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss
the further amended complaint, the hearing for which was calendared
for September 23, 2020; however, the court held a conference on
September 15 to discuss how the court could efficiently address the
recent SEC settlement agreement.
The parties stipulated to allow plaintiffs to further amend the
complaint solely to add allegations relating to the SEC settlement.
On October 14, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended
Complaint. On October 28, 2020, the defendants filed a supplemental
motion to dismiss.
On March 29, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendant's motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs' claims under Sections
10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act were dismissed with prejudice
against the company's former head of Investor Relations, Perry
Hayes. Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim, but not the Section 20
claim, was likewise dismissed as to Wally Liaw, a founder, former
director, and former SVP of International Sales.
The court denied the motions to dismiss the Section 10(b) and
Section 20 claims against the company, Charles Liang, and Howard
Hideshima, the company's former CFO. On March 11, 2022, the
company, together with the individual defendants, agreed in
principle with the plaintiff's counsel to settle the action. On
April 8, 2022, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement, pursuant to which and subject to court approval, the
plaintiff will dismiss with prejudice and release on behalf of a
class of shareholders all claims against defendants, including the
company, in exchange for payment of $18,250,000, of which sum
$2,000,000 will be funded by the company.
On May 25, 2022, the court vacated the hearing on preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement scheduled for June 2, 2022,
stating that the unopposed motion was suitable for disposition
without oral argument.
Super Micro Computer, Inc. is a Silicon Valley-based provider of
accelerated compute platforms.
SYGMA NETWORK: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Collective
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER MUDRICH, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, v. THE SYGMA NETWORK,
INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-04932-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an order:
-- granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion
for conditional certification; and
-- conditionally certifying the following putative FLSA
collective:
"All current and former hourly, non-exempt warehouse
employees of Defendant whose payroll records reflect that
they worked 40 or more hours in any workweek during the
three years preceding the date of this Court’s Opinion and
Order granting conditional certification through the final
disposition of this case."
To the extent they are amended to comport with this putative class
definition, the court conditionally approves the Plaintiff's
proposed discovery and notice distribution plans, as well as his
proposed Notice and Consent forms, the Court said.
Sygma, a subsidiary of Sysco Corporation, is a "nationwide
distributor of food and grocery products" that maintains its
central office in Dublin, Ohio. To date, it operates at least
fourteen distribution warehouses across the country, one of which
is located in Columbus, Ohio.
The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly, non-exempt "selector" in
Sygma’s Columbus-based warehouse from December 2019 to June 2022.
Part of (if not all) of his job required him to work on Sygma's
warehouse floor, and, consequentially, "wear certain personal
protective equipment," or "PPE."
According to Plaintiff, both he and his fellow "warehouse
associates" were "instructed" by Sygma to arrive to work "at least
30 minutes before the scheduled starts of their shifts" to don
their PPE, gather necessary equipment (e.g., a "jack" and "wearable
computer"), and execute various other "pre-shift" job duties. Only
after this period, he avers, did they clock in for their shift, the
Plaintiff adds.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CoeKlT at no extra charge.[CC]
TD BANK NA: Gallant Sues Over Misrepresentations and Omissions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Gallant, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:22-cv-05476-KMW-EAP (D.N.J.,
Sept. 9, 2022), is brought as a class action on behalf of Plaintiff
and thousands of similarly situated TD Bank accountholders who have
been deceived into using the Zelle money transfer service by TD
Bank's misrepresentations and omissions, in marketing and contract
materials, regarding the true operation and risks of that service.
These risks include the real and repeated risk of insufficient
funds fees ("NSF fees") or overdraft fees ("OD Fees") imposed by TD
Bank as a result of Zelle transfers from consumers' checking
accounts. TD Bank markets Zelle to its accountholders as a way for
consumers to send money they have in their account fast and "free,"
and that the service "won't cost you any extra money for the
transaction." In short, TD Bank markets Zelle as an effortless,
totally free way to send money. This is false. In fact, there are
huge, undisclosed risks of using the service.
Moreover, Zelle in some cases operates as a credit device, sending
money consumers don't have at the cost of high OD Fees assessed by
their banks. Transactions may be approved even when there are
insufficient funds in an account. But TD Bank never discloses that
Zelle acts as a credit device, nor warns that it can do so. Use of
the Zelle service cause unsuspecting consumers like Plaintiff to
incur significant overdraft and NSF fees on their linked bank
accounts.
Unfortunately, Zelle's operation, along with deceptive and
incomplete marketing materials promulgated by TD Bank, means that
users like Plaintiff end up paying huge amounts of bank fees, which
TD Bank falsely assures users they will not receive and/or fails to
warn users about. TD Bank touts the Zelle service as convenient,
simple, and totally free. But it misrepresents and fails to
disclose that overdraft and NSF fees are a likely and devastating
consequence of the use of the Zelle service. Zelle prominently
touts itself as offering "free" and "won't cost you any extra money
for the transaction" money transfers. In light of these
misrepresentations, Plaintiff and other reasonable consumers have
no idea the service comes with these damaging risks.
These risks are known to TD Bank but is omitted from all of its
marketing. Had Plaintiff and the Class members known of the true
operation and risks of the Zelle service--risks TD Bank alone was
aware of and actively misrepresented--they would not have signed up
for and used the Zelle service, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
TD Bank, N.A., is federally chartered bank with its principal place
of business in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Edelsberg, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
3331 Sunset Avenue
Ocean, NJ 07712
Phone: 305-610-5223
Email: rachel@dapeer.com
- and -
Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
Christopher Gold, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: 305-975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
chris@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Edwin E. Elliott, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
edwine@shamisgentile.com
TERREBONNE PARISH: O'Bryan Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bobbie O'Bryan, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TERREBONNE PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT, Case No.
2:22-cv-03203 (E.D. La., Sept. 9, 2022), is brought pursuant to the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal
Pay Act for the Defendant's failure to timely pay the Plaintiff all
overtime wages owed.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the FLSA because
the defendant did not timely pay them time and one-half the
respective hourly rates of pay for all overtime are sparked in the
two-week work periods between August 22, 2021 to September 18, 2021
and did not include Hurricane Ida emergency day pay in their
respective FLSA regular rate calculations in determining the amount
of overtime wages owed the two-week work periods between August 22,
2021 to September 18, 2021. The plaintiffs seek all damages
available under the FLSA, including unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, reasonable legal fees, costs and/or
post-judgment interest, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is employed by the Defendant as a police officer in
the Houma Police Department and currently serves as a police
captain.
Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government is a political
subdivision of the State located of Louisiana, in the Parish of
Terrebonne, Louisiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Damon J. Baldone, Esq.
Thomas E. Dunn, Esq.
Bobby J. Triche, Esq.
DAMON J. BALDONE & ASSOCIATES, APLC
162 New Orleans Blvd.
Houma, LA 70364
Phone: (985) 868-3427
Facsimile: (985) 872-2319
Email: damon@baldonelaw.com
thomas@baldonelaw.com
bobby@baldonelaw.com
TFORCE LOGISTICS: Lim Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANTIAGO LIM, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. TFORCE LOGISTICS,
LLC, and TFORCE FINAL MILE WEST, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-04390-JAK-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. granting his motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement;
2. certifying under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) &
(b)(3), for settlement purposes only, a Class comprising:
"all persons who, according to the Defendants' business
records or records provided to them by SCI,
(i) prior to and including December 31, 2019, signed an
Independent Contractor and/or Owner Operator
Agreement (either in their individual capacity or
as the owner of a business entity) with Dynamex
Operations West, Inc., TForce Final Mile West, LLC,
Tforce Logistics West, LLC, BeavEx, Inc., JNJW
Enterprises, Inc., Velocity Express Leasing, Inc.,
or Velocity Express, LLC, or, after December 31,
2019, signed an Owner Operator Agreement (either in
their individual capacity or as the owner of a
business entity) with Subcontracting Concepts CT,
LLC (SCI),
(ii) were based in California,
(iii) personally performed at least one delivery in
California through Dynamex Operations West, Inc.,
TForce Final Mile West, LLC, or TForce Logistics
West, LLC, from February 15, 2015 through December
31, 2022, or Preliminary Approval, whichever is
earlier, where the delivery was not performed on an
indirect basis through the person’s engagement or
association with a Delivery Service Professional
(DSP), Master Contractor, Agent, Carrier, or other
form of contractor, and
(iv) did not have more than one indirect driver working
or associated with them at the same or different
times during the Class Period;
3. appointing him as Settlement Class Representative and his
attorneys as Settlement Class Counsel;
4. appointing Kroll Settlement Administration as the
Settlement Administrator;
5. approving the proposed notice to be distributed to Class
Members under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) and
(e)(1); and
6. setting a fairness hearing consistent with the schedule
for class notice, objections, disputes, and requests for
exclusion, as set forth in this Motion.
TForce is doing business in same-day and next-day delivery
solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 26,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dRP8V3
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Konecky, Esq.
Nathan Piller, Esq.
Sarah McCracken, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
npiller@schneiderwallace.com
smccracken@schneiderwallace.com
TIKTOK INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Image Misuse
----------------------------------------------------------------
The former star of "The Real Housewives of New York" and social
media influencer Bethenny Frankel has filed a class action lawsuit
against TikTok over alleged misuse of her images and likeness.
Bethenny Frankel, who has more than 990,000 followers on TikTok,
filed the lawsuit as she pushes for a broad policy change within
the social media platform.
Details of Bethenny Frankel's Lawsuit Against TikTok
The Blast has learned that Morgan & Morgan has filed a class action
lawsuit against the social media platform, TikTok, on behalf of the
businesswoman and reality television star, Bethenny Frankel, for
"the alleged violation of her right to publicity and the
unauthorized use of her image and likeness to promote and sell
counterfeit products on the platform."
"I want to be a voice for change in the space," Ms. Frankel said in
a statement.
This comes after a TikTok video, created by Bethenny Frankel, was
allegedly stolen and re-posted for marketing purposes by another
company. The 51-year-old is now seeking compensation for the
"significant damages to her business and reputation, as well as
broad changes to impose stricter regulations regarding TikTok's
advertising."
She claims the video was a "violation of her image, right to
publicity and reputation."
Bethenny Frankel Urges For a Policy Change
According to the lawyers, Bethenny Frankel is urging TikTok, as
well as other social media platforms, to implement a policy change
to protect creators' content "in any form, including, without
limitation, images, videos, text, and audio, created and published
on social media or other channels, from being misused and
misrepresented."
The policy change - #BethennysContentClause - came after Ms.
Frankel's followers told the reality television star that her
images and video content were being used to sell "counterfeit
products", with led many to believe that she had "sold out" and was
"hawking" fake products.
"It came to my attention that TikTok was disseminating videos using
my proprietary content without my consent to sell merchandise with
which I have no affiliation," Ms. Frankel said in a statement.
"I've discovered that this is a widespread issue affecting creators
of all sizes across the space. It's unacceptable, and I want to be
a voice for change and use my platform to create a shift in the
industry. When you look at advertising on television, it's highly
regulated. TikTok ads are getting millions-upon-millions of views -
exponentially more than TV - and yet it's the Wild West of
advertising. There is little-to-no effort made to regulate and
police that content, and we're going to change that."
Frankel approached TikTok regarding the illegal matters, but the
social media company "allegedly ignored Ms. Frankel's demands to
remove the unlawful content."
"Influencers and content creators spend months, if not years,
developing their brands and building trust with their audiences,"
said Morgan & Morgan attorneys John Morgan and John Yanchunis, Ms.
Frankel's counsel.
Adding, "As the fastest growing social media platform, TikTok has
the responsibility to implement measures to detect and stop illegal
practices, such as the misuse of their content creators' names and
likenesses. These videos violated Ms. Frankel's right to publicity
and caused significant damages to her business. Beyond the damage
to her individual business and reputation, these practices deceive
and harm consumers. Our goal is to hold TikTok accountable and
ensure they take steps to prevent this from happening again."
TikTok Allegedly Removed Frankel's Video
Not long after Frankel exposed the social media platform and warned
her followers of the alleged illegal use of her content, TikTok
removed her video and labeled it "abusive."
Although it seems TikTok has taken some steps to further prevent
the fake videos from circulating the internet, the damage has
already been done and has caused damage to Ms. Frankel's
reputation.
It seems as though Ms. Frankel is not the only one to experience
this as other content creators on TikTok have since reached out to
the 51-year-old to share they had similar experiences.
"As creators, our proprietary content being used illegally and
without our approval diminishes our brands and reputations. This
practice deceives consumers, and it misrepresents creators," Ms.
Frankel continued. [GN]
TIP TOP COCKTAILS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tip Top Cocktails
Inc. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Tip Top
Cocktails Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05752 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Tip Top Cocktails -- https://tiptopcocktails.com/ -- is a
manufacturer of beverage products intended to offer canned
cocktails.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: McClure Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toyota Motor
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Nick McClure,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Manufacturing
Canada, Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03898-SEG (N.D. Ga., Sept. 27, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.
Toyota Motor Corporation -- http://global.toyota/en-- is a
Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in
Toyota City, Aichi, Japan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stacey Allen Carroll, Esq.
CARROLL LAW FIRM LLC
295 W. Crossville Rd., Ste. 730
Roswell, GA 30075
Phone: (404) 816-4555
Email: stacey@carroll-firm.com
TRAVELERS PROPERTY: Dale Sues Over Auto Insurance Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Dale, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company, Case No.
2:22-cv-01659-JZB (D. Ariz., Sept. 30, 2022) is a class action
pursuant to (a) 28 U.S.C. section 2201 & 2202 for a declaratory
judgment regarding her rights and the rights of the Class under
their Travelers auto insurance policies.
Under Arizona law, auto insurers must permit their customers to
stack policies or coverages for uninsured and underinsured motor
vehicle accident claims, unless the insurer employs one of two easy
methods to avoid stacking -- either (1) including a "statement" in
the policy "inform[ing]" the insured of her "right to select one
policy or coverage" as "applicable to any one accident," or (2)
sending the insured, within thirty days of being notified of the
accident, written notice of her "right to select one policy or
coverage." Here, the insurer did neither, says the suit.
On February 24, 2020, a third-party driver rear-ended Plaintiff
Dale while she was driving her vehicle on the highway. The
third-party driver negligently failed to slow down with the flow of
traffic, and the front of their vehicle collided with the back of
Ms. Dale's vehicle. The collision caused Plaintiff's vehicle to
impact the vehicle in front of her.
Because UM/UIM coverage is a personal coverage -- despite being
associated with a vehicle -- it covers the person, not the vehicle.
When there are multiple vehicles, multiple UM/UIM coverages can
exist, and those coverage limits can be added together to provide
"stacked" benefits for a single claim. Each separate coverage limit
can be accessed to provide benefits for the same covered loss. When
stacking coverages, the coverage limit is determined by adding
together the UM/UIM benefits limits available under each vehicle's
UM/UIM coverage. When an insured is injured, insurance companies
must find coverage for the insured, identify available coverages
and limits, inform the insured accurately about available coverages
and benefits, reasonably investigate the claim and applicable law,
construe the policy in accordance with known law, treat its insured
fairly and reasonably, give the insured's interests equal
consideration, and not conceal or misrepresent pertinent policy
provisions, benefits or coverages, the suit added.
Plaintiff Dale is an insured under the Travelers policy.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert B. Carey, Esq.
John M. DeStefano, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Telephone: (602) 840-5900
Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com
johnd@hbsslaw.com
TWC PRODUCT: Asks Court for Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hart v. TWC Product and
Technology LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-03842-JST (N.D. Cal.), TWC asks
the Court to enter an order granting leave to file surreply.
In the event the Court declines to do so, TWC requests that the
Court decline to consider any new arguments raised in Plaintiffs'
reply brief or, at a minimum, consider the testimony of Travis
Smith.
TWC is located in Atlanta, Georgia. The organization primarily
operates in the Television Broadcasting Stations
business/industry.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 26, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BXs4Ms at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Stephen A. Broome, Esq.
William R. Sears, Esq.
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
E-mail: stephenbroome@quinnemanuel.com
willsears@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Lindsay Cooper, Esq.
50 California Street, Floor 22
San Francisco, CA 4111
Telephone: (415) 875-6600
Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
E-mail: lindsaycooper@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Anil Makhijani, Esq.
Casey Adams, Esq.
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010-1601
Telephone: (212) 849-7000
Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
E-mail: anilmakhijani@quinnemanuel.com
caseyadams@quinnemanuel.com
U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Brown Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. U-Haul International, Inc., Case No. (D. Ariz., Sept.
29, 2022) is a consumer data breach lawsuit arising out of the
Defendant's failure to implement and maintain adequate security and
safeguards with respect to its collection and maintenance of highly
sensitive and confidential personal information of its customers,
including names, dates of birth, and driver's license or state
identification numbers.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's insufficient and
unreasonable data security practices caused, facilitated, and
exacerbated the data breach and its impact on Plaintiff and Class
members. By Defendant's own admission, from at least November 5,
2021 to April 5, 2022, an unauthorized person obtained access to
Defendant's customer contract search tool and customer rental
contracts. Although Defendant identified the incident as early as
August 1, 2022, Defendant did not warn those most at risk -- The
Plaintiff and Class members, until September 9, 2022.
On or about September 9, 2022, Defendant notified the Security
Exchange Commission of the Data Breach. The Data Breach exposed
Plaintiff's and Class members' highly personally identifiable
information to criminals, including, but not limited to, name, date
of birth, and driver's license number or state identification
number. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class members
have been and must continue to be vigilant and review their credit
reports for incidents of identity theft, and educate themselves
about security freezes, fraud alerts, and other steps to protect
themselves against identity theft. The Defendant's Data Breach
Notice also advises Plaintiff and Class members to do all of this,
says the suit.
U-Haul is an American moving truck, trailer, and self-storage
rental company, based in Phoenix, Arizona, that has been in
operation since 1945. U-Haul has a network of locations across the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
DANN LAW
15000 Madison Avenue
Lakewood, OH 44107
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
E-mail: mdann@dannlaw.com; notices@dannlaw.com
- and -
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
E-mail: firm@attorneyzim.com
- and -
Robert D. Mitchell, Esq.
Christopher J. Waznik, Esq.
Anne P. Barber, Esq.
CM Matthew Luk, Esq.
TIFFANY & BOSCO, PA
Camelback Esplanade II, Seventh Floor
2525 East Camelback Road
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone (602) 255-6000
E-mail: rdm@tblaw.com
cjw@tblaw.com
apb@tblaw.com
cml@tblaw.com
UNIFIRST CORPORATION: Salas Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Salas, individually and for others similarly situated v.
UNIFIRST CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-11634 (D. Mass., Sept. 27,
2022), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours a week, but never
received overtime pay as required by the FLSA. Instead, the
Defendant misclassified these workers as exempt from the FLSA's
overtime compensation requirements and paid them a 'salary' in an
attempt to avoid their obligations under federal law. Accordingly,
the Plaintiff brings this collective action to recover the unpaid
overtime wages and other damages owed to these workers, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for UniFirst as a Sales Representative from
August 2019 until March 2020.
UniFirst is one of the largest providers of "image enhancing"
uniforms and work apparel for businesses that currently employs
13,000 individuals and outfits more than 1.5 million workers each
business day.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Gordon, Esq.
Kristen M. Hurley, Esq.
GORDON LAW GROUP, LLP
585 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02116
Phone: 617-536-1800
Facsimile: 617-536-1802
Email: pgordon@gordonllp.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
Alyssa White, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
cfitz@mybackwages.com
awhite@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
UNIQLO CO: Class Action Accuses of Wiretapping Private Chat Convo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
classaction.org reports that a proposed class action claims that
Uniqlo secretly wiretaps private conversations held in the chat
feature on its website.
According to the nine-page case, the retailer has failed to obtain
consumers' consent before sharing their chat conversations with
third parties for financial gain. The complaint alleges Uniqlo has
run afoul of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), a state
law which requires all parties involved in an electronic
communication to consent to have it wiretapped or eavesdropped
upon.
By embedding code into its online chat feature, Uniqlo allows third
parties, namely SalesForce and/or LivePerson, who provide the
retailer's chat technology, to "secretly intercept in real time,
eavesdrop upon, and store transcripts" of its of chat
communications with unsuspecting website visitors, "even when such
conversations are private and deeply personal," the case contends.
Recording chat conversations is a profitable and sought-after
practice, the lawsuit claims. According to one industry expert,
"[l]ive chat transcripts are the gold mines of customer service"
given a company can have at its fingertips "valuable customer
insight to make informed business decisions."
The case argues that however enriching wiretapping might for
Uniqlo, consumers would be "shocked and appalled" at the invasion
of privacy.
The lawsuit looks to represent California residents who
communicated with Uniqlo using the chat feature on its website and
had their communications recorded and/or eavesdropped upon without
prior consent during the applicable statute of limitations period.
[GN]
UNITED STATES: Lewis Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Parolees
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES LEWIS, et al., v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02182-RCL
(D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a class as to all claims in this action,
defined as follows:
"All District of Columbia code parolees who meet all of
the following requirements:
(1) have not had their parole terminated after being on
parole continuously for five years;
(2) have not had a termination hearing once they reached
five years; and
(3) have not had a termination hearing every two years
thereafter (where applicable).
2. certifying Anthony Mack, Carlton Paige, and Darin Hagins
as class representatives;
3. appointing Zoe Friedland and Hanna Perry from the Public
Defender Service for the District of Columbia as class
counsel.
The United States Parole Commission is the parole board responsible
for granting or denying parole to, and supervising the parole
releases of, incarcerated individuals who fall under its
jurisdiction.
A copy of Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 27, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CuNuCk at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zoe Friedland, Esq.
Hanna Perry, Esq.
PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
633 Indiana Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: (202) 824-2524
Facsimile: (202) 824-2525
UPSIDE NORTH AMERICA: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Upside (North
America) LLC. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. The Upside (North America) LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05751
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Upside -- https://www.theupside.com/ -- offers joggers,
leggings, sweaters, track pants, hoodies, tops, shorts, jackets,
bras, yoga pants, tops, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
USAA GENERAL: Fuller Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEDEN FULLER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. USAA GENERAL
INDEMNITY CO., Case No. 0:20-cv-62237-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff files a motion for class certification seeking
certification of a nationwide damages class and Florida damages
subclass.
The Plaintiff also requests certification of a nationwide
injunctive class and Florida injunctive class.
This is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff who
submitted a covered total loss claim for physical damage under a
private passenger auto (PPA) insurance policy issued by the
Defendant USAA.
The Plaintiff's policy had a Car Replacement Assistance endorsement
(CRA Endorsement) that was separate from comprehensive and
collision coverage.
The CRA Endorsement required USAA to pay "an additional 20% of the
actual cash value of the vehicle at the time of a total loss."
Although USAA determined Plaintiff's claim was a covered claim,
USAA refused to pay the 20% of car replacement assistance to
Plaintiff and instead paid such amount to the lienholder on
Plaintiff's total loss vehicle.
The Plaintiff brings his claims on behalf of himself and a class of
USAA total loss insureds for USAA's failure to pay Plaintiff and
putative class members amounts due under the CRA Endorsement.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 26,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y6dHEo
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tracy L. Markham, Esq.
SOUTHERN ATLANTIC LAW GROUP, PLLC
520 6th Street NW
Winter Haven, FL 33881
Telephone: (904) 794-7005
E-mail: tlm@southernatlanticlaw.com
pleadingsonly@southernatlanticlaw.com
- and -
Christopher B. Hall, Esq.
HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
300 Galleria Parkway, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (404) 876-8100
Facsimile: (404) 876-3477
E-mail:chall@hallandlampros.com
USAA: Court Enters Third Amended Scheduling Order in Tomczak
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MALLOREY TOMCZAK, LUIS
RIVERA-SOLIS, KALITHA HEAD, JOSEPHINE WALKER, AND LESLIE WYATT, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED
SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, AND GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:21-cv-01564-MGL (D.S.C.), the Hon.
Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered an third amended scheduling order
as follows:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their January 31, 2023
motion for class certification
no later than:
-- The Defendants shall file their May 15, 2023
brief in opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification
no later than:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their July 12, 2023
reply brief in support of their
Motion for Class Certification
no later than:
-- Motions to join other parties January 20, 2023
and amend the pleadings shall
be filed no later than:
USAA provides financial services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3C1pTaE at no extra charge.[CC]
VHERNIER USA.: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vhernier U.S.A., LLC.
The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Vhernier
U.S.A., LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05753 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Vhernier -- https://vhernier.com/ -- offers jewelry shaped by a
passion for contemporary design, a desire for innovation and the
artistry of Italy's finest expert craftsmen.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
VIESTE SPE: Completion Date of Class Depositions Extended
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crossfirst Bank et al., v.
Vieste SPE LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01637 (D. Ariz.), the Hon.
Judge Douglas L. Rayes entered an order pursuant to the parties'
stipulation for extension of time to complete class depositions and
respond to motion for class certification:
-- the deadline to complete class depositions is extended to
Oct. 26, 2022; and
-- the deadline for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is extended to and including
Nov. 9, 2022.
The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other
fraud.[CC]
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Cars Have Water Pump Defects, Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW FISCINA and KYLE DUARTE, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., a
New Jersey Corporation, d/b/a AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., VOLKSWAGEN AG,
a German Corporation, and AUDI AG, a German Corporation, Case No.
2:22-cv-05875-KM-LDW (D.N.J., Oct. 4, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' failure, despite its longstanding knowledge since at
least November 2, 2018, to disclose to the Plaintiffs and other
consumers that the Class Vehicles contain a defectively designed
and/or manufactured water pump that causes it to prematurely fail
(Water Pump Defect).
According to the complaint, when the Defect manifests, it may cause
the engines in the Class Vehicles to overheat, resulting in sudden
and catastrophic engine failure. The sudden and unexpected
catastrophic engine failure causes the Class Vehicles to
unexpectedly stop, posing a danger to the drivers and occupants of
the Class Vehicles, and others who share the road with them, as
other vehicles can collide with the Class Vehicles after they
suddenly stop moving. Not only did the Defendants actively conceal
the fact that the Class Vehicles were prone to the Defect, which
could result in sudden and unexpected slowing and stopping events
and other dangerous situations (and require costly repairs to fix),
but they also did not reveal that the existence of this Defect
would diminish the intrinsic and resale value of the Class
Vehicles, says the suit.
The Defendants have long been aware of the Defect. Despite their
longstanding knowledge, Defendants have been unable or unwilling to
adequately repair the Class Vehicles when the Defect manifests.
Many owners and lessees of the Class Vehicles have communicated
with the Defendants and their agents to request that they remedy
and/or address the Defect at Defendants' expense. Defendants have
failed and/or refused to do so, often conveying to owners and
lessees that the Class Vehicles are operating as intended and
therefore cannot be repaired under warranty or otherwise. The
Defendants have also refused to take any action to correct this
concealed defect when it manifests in the Class Vehicles outside of
the warranty period. Because the defect can manifest shortly
outside of the warranty period for the Class Vehicles -- and given
Defendants' knowledge of this concealed, safety-related
defect—Defendants' attempt to limit the warranty with respect to
the engine defect is unconscionable and unenforceable here, the
suit added.
As a result of the Defendants' unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent
business practices, owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles,
including Plaintiffs, have suffered an ascertainable loss of money
and/or property and/or loss in value. The unfair and deceptive
trade practices committed by Defendants were conducted in a manner
giving rise to substantial aggravating circumstances. Had
Plaintiffs and other Class Members known of the Defect at the time
of purchase or lease, they would not have bought or leased the
Class Vehicles, or would have paid substantially less for them, the
suit further asserts.
The Plaintiffs are also informed and believe, and on that basis
allege, that as the number of complaints increased, and Class
Members grew dissatisfied with the performance of the Class
Vehicles, Defendants were forced to acknowledge that the Class
Vehicles suffer from an inherent defect.
As a result of the Defect and the monetary costs associated with
attempting to repair the Defect, Plaintiffs and the Class Members
have allegedly suffered injury in fact, incurred damages, and have
otherwise been harmed by Defendants' conduct.
The case seeks protection and relief for owners and lessees of the
Class Vehicles for the harm they have suffered, and the safety
risks they face, from the Defendants' breaches of express and
implied warranties and Defendants' unfair, unlawful, and deceptive
trade practices.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
Mark B. DeSanto, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
1109 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (610) 200-0581
Facsimile: (610) 421-1326
E-mail: mds@sstriallawyers.com
jbk@sstriallawyers.com
mbd@sstriallawyers.com
WALMART INC: Faces Suit Over Rescinded Employment Offer
-------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Block at mselaborlaw.com reports that in February 2021, the
New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Enforcement Assistance and
Marketplace Modernization Act ("Cannabis Act") went into effect,
making it unlawful for employers in the state to refuse employment
to job candidates solely because they have received a positive drug
test result indicating they have cannabis/marijuana in their body.
However, a New Jersey man alleges in a putative class action
lawsuit that Wal-Mart and Sam's Club recently did just that.
On June 13, 2022, Erick Zanetich filed suit against Wal-Mart and
Sam's Club in New Jersey state court, alleging that the stores
violated the Cannabis Act when they rescinded an offer of
employment for a security-related position on the grounds that he
had tested positive for marijuana during a mandatory pre-employment
drug test. Zanetich brought the case on behalf of himself and a
class of all persons who were denied employment by Wal-Mart in the
state of New Jersey because they tested positive for marijuana in a
pre-employment drug screen or were subject to any other adverse
employment action because of testing positive for marijuana.
Wal-Mart removed the case to the federal court on September 2,
2022, in part because Zanetich's allegations demonstrate that the
damages sought in the case exceed $75,000. The case, which is still
in the early stages, is now pending under the caption Zanetich v.
Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05387 (D.N.J.).
If you believe you have suffered an unlawful adverse employment
action or have been wrongfully denied employment on prohibited
grounds, please contact MSE to learn more about your rights. [GN]
WELLPATH LLC: Hoyle Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Angela Hoyle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WELLPATH LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02665-MSN-atc (W.D.
Tenn., Sept. 28, 2022), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act to recover these unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed
by Defendant to the Plaintiff who was the ultimate victims of not
just the Kronos outage, but Wellpath's decision to make its own
non-exempt employees workers bear the economic burden for the
outage.
Like many other companies across the United States, Wellpath LLC's
Kronos-based timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by a
service outage in beginning in December 2021. That outage led to
problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout Wellpath's
organization. As a result, Wellpath's workers who were not exempt
from overtime under federal law were not paid for all overtime
hours worked and/or were not paid their proper overtime premium on
time, if at all, for all overtime hours worked during and after the
Kronos outage.
Wellpath could have easily implemented a system to accurately
record time and properly pay non-exempt hourly and salaried
employees until issues related to the outage were resolved.
Instead, Wellpath pushed the cost of the Kronos outage onto the
most economically vulnerable people in its workforce. Wellpath made
the economic burden of the Kronos outage fall on front-line
workers--average Americans--who rely on the full and timely payment
of their wages to make ends meet. Wellpath's failure to pay wages,
including proper overtime, on time and in full for all hours worked
violates the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is one of the many Wellpath employees affected by
these pay and timekeeping practices.
Wellpath provides mental and behavioral healthcare services to
patients in inpatient and residential treatment facilities, civil
commitment centers, and federal correctional facilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 1th Floor
Orlando, Florida 32801
Phone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3383
Email: kimd@forthepeople.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Phone: 713 999 5228
Email: matt@parmet.law
WESTERN RANGE: Castillo Wins Partial Summary Judgment Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABEL CANTARO CASTILLO, v.
WESTERN RANGE ASSOCIATION, Case No. 3:16-cv-00237-RCJ-CLB (D.
Nev.), the Hon. Judge Robert C. Jones entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary
judgment; and
2. denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class.
The Court further ordered that a question be sent to the Nevada
Supreme Court to resolve the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment.
The court will defer on the Defendant's summary judgment motion and
stay all further proceedings until the Nevada Supreme Court answers
the certified question.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y4QySI at no extra charge.[CC]
WINGSTOP RESTAURANTS: Carpio Files Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wingstop Restaurants
Inc. The case is styled as Julio Carpio, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Wingstop Restaurants Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-05764 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated Other Labor.
Wingstop Inc. -- https://www.wingstop.com/ -- is an American
multinational chain of aviation-themed restaurants specializing in
chicken wings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Ste. 1810
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (718) 669-0714
Email: mgangat107@gmail.com
WOODLANDS KIRBY'S: Ferrell Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC FERRELL, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. THE WOODLANDS KIRBY'S, LLC, KIRBY'S STEAKHOUSE -- THE
WOODLANDS, LTD., SOUTHLAKE KIRBY'S, LLC, KIRBY'S STEAKHOUSE --
SOUTHLAKE, LTD., SAN ANTONIO KIRBY'S, LLC, GREENVILLE KIRBY'S LLC,
MMSH-OKC, LLC, MICKEYS & KIRBYS LP, and MK GENERAL PARTNER LLC,
Case No. 4:22-cv-03350 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 29, 2022) is a action
against the Defendants to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages, unlawfully retained tips, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants own and operate restaurants in Texas and Oklahoma
under the names Kirby's Prime Steakhouse and Mickey Mantle's
Steakhouse. The Plaintiff and those he seeks to represent worked as
tipped employees at one or more of the restaurants. The Defendants
pay tipped employees a tipped hourly wage less than the statutory
$7.25 per hour minimum wage (and $10.88 per hour minimum overtime
wage for hours worked over 40 in a workweek) and rely on the "tip
credit" provisions of the FLSA to satisfy their statutory minimum
wage obligations. However, Defendants also require employees to
share tips in a manner that violates the "tip credit" provisions of
the FLSA. Specifically, Defendants violate the FLSA by requiring
tipped employees to share tips with their employer and management
employees, in violation of 29 U.S.C. section 203(m)(2)(B), which
states that "[a]n employer may not keep tips received by their
employees for any purposes, including allowing managers or
supervisors to keep any portion of employees' tips," says the
suit.
As a result of this violation, the Defendants are not permitted to
rely on the "tip credit" to satisfy their minimum wage and overtime
obligations under the FLSA and therefore have failed to pay the
required minimum wage, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 206, and
overtime wage, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 207, the suit added.
The Defendants employed Plaintiff at multiple Kirby's / Mickey
Mantle's Steakhouse locations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
- and -
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
ZILLOW GROUP: Adams Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zillow Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Jill Adams, as Natural Mother and Net Friend
of her minor child, H.A., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Zillow Group, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-01023
(E.D. Mo., Sept. 27, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for
Breach of Contract.
Zillow Group, Inc. -- https://www.zillowgroup.com/ -- or simply
Zillow, is an American tech real-estate marketplace company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq.
CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL
308 Hutchinson Road
Ellisville, MO 63011
Phone: (314) 541-0317
Fax: (855) 710-7706
Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com
ZILLOW GROUP: Margulis Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zillow Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Ryan Margulis, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Zillow Group, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04847 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 8, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Zillow Group, Inc. -- https://www.zillowgroup.com/ -- or simply
Zillow, is an American tech real-estate marketplace company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Marc Jagher, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (610) 234-6486
Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
ZILLOW GROUP: Perkins Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping
----------------------------------------------------
Natalie Perkins and Kenneth Hasson, individually and on behalf
themselves and of all others similarly situated v. ZILLOW GROUP,
INC. and MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Case No. 2:22-cv-01282-SKV (W.D.
Wash., Sept. 12, 2022), is brought against Defendants for
wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors to Zillow's
website, www.zillow.com.
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, Microsoft and other Session Replay Providers use those
Website Communications to recreate website visitors' entire visit
to Zillow's website. Microsoft and other 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. The Defendants' conduct violates the
Washington Wiretapping Statute and constitutes an invasion of the
privacy rights of website visitors, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs have visited Zillow's website.
Zillow operates the Zillow website. 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206.682.5600
Fax: 206.682.2992
Email: kstephens@tousley.com
jdennett@tousley.com
kboyd@tousley.com
- and -
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Carey Alexander, Esq.
Ethan Binder, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Phone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
calexander@scott-scott.com
ebinder@scott-scott.com
- and -
E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
Sharika Robinson, Esq.
Marcela Jenkins, Esq.
WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
P. O. Box 382434
Birmingham, AL 35238-2434
Phone: (205) 908-4906
Email: kirk@woodlawfirmllc.com
- and -
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
[*] Arbitration Agreements Upheld in FCRA Suit Against Retailers
----------------------------------------------------------------
pre-employ.com reports that a federal judge based in Pennsylvania
has sent a proposed class action lawsuit against two major
retailers alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA) to arbitration. The judge also rejected multiple claims from
out-of-state consumers against other retailers, which must refill
in venues with personal jurisdiction.
The arbitration case revolved around using a consumer reporting
agency (CRA), which provided consumer reports to retailers. These
reports helped these retailers decide whether to grant or deny
returns and exchanges. According to the complaint, the CRA tracked
the returns and exchanges of consumers. It then used algorithms and
predictive modeling to give retailers a rating of the likelihood
that a consumer would perform fraud and other retail crimes.
The proposed plaintiffs claimed that the CRA's investigation of
their purchase and internet history violated their privacy and
multiple state laws. The plaintiffs also claimed that the CRA
unfairly reduced consumers' ratings if it found online links
between them and individuals suspected of fraud.
Several defendants moved for dismissal, arguing that they had
insufficient contact with Pennsylvania for the court to hold
personal jurisdiction. The District Court approved this motion
based on a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision. The decision
found that simply registering to do business in the state
insufficiently provides the court with jurisdiction over an
out-of-state company.
The remaining two retailers attempted to compel arbitration,
arguing that the plaintiffs agreed to resolve their claims through
arbitration. The first plaintiff asserted that they had been
unaware of any arbitration agreements. Furthermore, they claimed
the only evidence was testimony from a manager to whom they had
opened an email with the deal. The second plaintiff argued that
their sole arbitration agreement revolved around the retailer's
points program. Therefore, the agreement would not apply to returns
and exchanges.
However, the U.S. District Judge found evidence that a valid
arbitration agreement existed. The judge then stated that the
second plaintiff also agreed to resolve their claims through
arbitration because points proved available through purchases. As a
result, the claims against the retailers will now proceed to
arbitration. An arbitrator will decide whether the arbitration
agreement applies.
Now, the only remaining claim in the case is against the CRA.
However, the District Judge stayed these claims pending the outcome
of arbitration with the retailers. [GN]
[*] Litigation Funders Warn EU Regulation Could Hinder Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
cityam.com reports that UK litigation funders have hit out at EU
plans to regulate the sector in arguing the bloc's proposals to cap
fees could prevent class action lawsuits going forwards.
The EU's proposal is clear the litigation funding sector has the
potential to support access to justice and help ensure public cases
are brought to court, by working to address the "significant
economic imbalances that exist between corporations and those
citizens seeking redress."
However, it raises concerns the third-party financing sector lacks
transparency and is unconstrained in its ability to demand
excessive sums in return for services.
Specifically, the directive puts forward plans to cap litigation
funders' fees at 40 per cent of any winnings, in stating 60 per
cent of any money won must be paid to the original claimants.
In turn, it seeks to block funders from taking control of
proceedings to push for an outcome that benefits them financially,
as it suggests funders may in some cases push for settlements that
pay "the greatest return . . . in the shortest amount of time"
against the interests of potential victims.
It also calls for new rules to ensure funders returns are
proportionate to the investments they put in, as it suggests some
financiers take away sums equivalent to 300 per cent of their
original investments.
However, Tets Ishikawa, managing director at LionFish Litigation
Finance, said "capping fees would hinder access to justice" in the
EU if the directive goes into law, as he noted the plans are still
at an "early stage".
David Greene, a senior partner in Edwin Coe's class action
practice, said: "It is vital to leave it to the nascent market to
determine pricing otherwise the more difficult public and consumer
cases will not secure funding".
Greene argued investors may simply begin shifting funds towards
"safer investments" instead of taking the risk of backing a
speculative case. He noted there is already "much competition" in
the litigation funding market that "regulates pricing and
returns."
Aside from calling for a cap on fees, the directive says third
party funders should also be responsible for any costs arising from
unsuccessful litigation. The draft directive says litigation
funders should be blocked from abandoning cases at any stage of the
litigation process, therefore leaving claimants responsible for all
costs.
It also calls for new rules ensuring any litigation financing
agreements are disclosed to the court, as it raises concerns courts
may award damages without being aware a share of that sum will be
paid to a third-party financier.
Funders talking to City A.M. also raised concerns that the EU's
proposals are for the most part focused on collective and class
action lawsuits, as they noted a large proportion of cases brought
forward are on behalf of businesses and other sophisticated
claimants who are in a better position to negotiate.
Gary Barnett, executive director of the International Legal Finance
Association (ILFA) said: "Legal finance plays a critical role for
European Union citizens and businesses seeking redress provided to
them by law and protecting the effective administration of justice.
[GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***