/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221031.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, October 31, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 211
Headlines
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Safeway Denies Allegations in Stewart Suit
ALLIANCE FIBER: Judgments in Bushansky & Khaki Class Suits Affirmed
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Partially Consolidates Yip & Hamilton Suits
BED BATH: Bragar Eagel Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Omori's Bid for Exclusion of Affidavits Denied
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Summary Judgment Bid in Omori Suit Partly OK'd
CALIFORNIA: Parties in Fowler v. Lanier to File Joint Status Report
COMPASS MINERALS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 20
ESTABLISHMENT LABS: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
FCA US: Court Denies Flynn's Bid to Reconsider Taxation of Costs
FORGEROCK INC: Juan Monteverde Probes Possible Securities Claims
FRAME LA: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Sep. 15, 2023
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Trivedi Securities Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
GENPACT LLC: Bland Files Suit Over Management Trainees' Unpaid OT
GEORGIA: Deaf Individuals Win Class Certification
GRUBHUB INC: Court Denies Bid to Lift Stay in Lynn Scott Suit
H. N. FERNANDEZ: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HANESBRANDS INC: Toussaint Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina
HAZEL AND OLIVE: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HCA-IT&S FIELD: Martin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
HEXAGON MANUFACTURING: Frohlich Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HOST INTERNATIONAL: Court Certifies Three Classes in Lewis Suit
HYATT CORP: Cert. Discovery in Insixiengmay Suit to End May 19
ILONA INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INTERNATIONAL UNION: McLachlan Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Toogood Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Kentucky
JEFFREY L. RICHARDSON: Liberty Files Suit in D. South Carolina
JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Due Dec. 15
JUSTANSWER LLC: Quamina Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal
KARYN MANNIX: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KATE ASPEN INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KAY WATERPROOFING: Does Not Pay Workers Proper Wages, Cabrera Says
KIA AMERICA: Burnett Files Suit in N.D. Indiana
KINGLINE NUTRITION: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Scheduling Order Entered in Hobbs Suit
KNOWBE4 INC: Juan Monteverde Probes Possible Securities Claims
KOLD TRANS: Stipulation to Continue Class Certification OK'd
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Gibbons Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Krantz Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
LAWRENCE FINE ART: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LJUBLJANA INTER: Court Issues Agreed Protective Order in Klein Suit
LOONEY LABORATORIES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LOVEBUG NUTRITION: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAINSTAGE MGMT: Wins in Part Summary Judgment Bid in Layton Suit
MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING: Scheduling Order Entered in Hinton Suit
MATTERPORT INC: Stemmelin Loses Bid to Modify Scheduling Order
MDL 2670: Partial Summary Judgment Issued in Seafood Antitrust Suit
MEDICAL SECURITY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss SASB Class Complaint
MESA PACKING: Cy Pres Recipient Given $66K in Miguel-Sanchez Suit
MINISO GROUP: Ashraf's Securities Suit in Preliminary Stage
MONARCH RECOVERY: Mullins Suit Remanded to Caldwell Super. Court
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Wallenstein Sues Over False Labeling
MSK RESTAURANT: Borja Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: Buelvas Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas
NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: Nov. 10 Deadline to File Class Status Sought
NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL: Krackenberger Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
NYC VELO: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NYGG ASIA: Bid for Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement Due Feb. 3
ORTHOFIX MEDICAL: Juan Monteverde Probes Possible Securities Claims
ORVIS CO: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Amended Farris Class Suit
PARADISE EXTERIORS: Extension of Expert Disclosure Deadlines Sought
PEARL RIVER MART: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRICT: Renewed Bid for Class Cert Filed
PINNACLE WEST CAPITAL: Skrtich Sues Over ERISA Violation
PIZZA PALS INC: Santiago Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
PLAID ENTERPRISES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PREMIER NUTRITION: Court Approves $25K Service Award for Montera
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Eves Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Drummond, et al., File Class Cert. Bid
RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert. Deadlines
RESEARCH ENHANCED: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RITE AID: Robbins Geller Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit
RUDYS MUSIC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
S & P MINI: Faces Paulino Suit Over Deli Workers' Unpaid Wages
S1 SECURITY GROUP: Mendiburt Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SCENARIO COCKRAM: Court Enters Final Judgment in Nese Class Suit
SCRIBE OPCO: Jones Wins Bid to Certify Class
SEISEIDOU AMERICA: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SESEN BIO INC: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial OK
SHAKESTIR LLC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SHAY HUGHES: Bartole Suit Tossed for Not Having Actionable Claims
SHERWOOD MANAGEMENT: Bashir Seeks Sales Associates' Unpaid Wages
SNAP INC: Deadline for Residents to Submit Claims Set Nov. 5
SONUS NETWORKS: Misleads Investors on Sales Outlook, Suit Claims
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid for Dismissal of Luo Suit Due Nov. 30
SPRUCE HOUSE: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STATE FARM GENERAL: Pearce Files Suit in S.D. Florida
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Bids to Dismiss Hickman Suit Granted in Part
SUGAR BEETS INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
T-MOBILE USA: Taveras Sues Over Delinquent Wage Payments
TA OPERATING: Peters Suit Removed to C.D. California
TARGET CORP: Bayne's Breach of Implied Warranty Claim Proceeds
TATTOOED CHEF: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
TDI LLC: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
TEVA BRANDED: Morrison Proceedings Stayed Pending Transfer Ruling
TOV FURNITURE: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TP-LINK USA: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRUE VALUE COMPANY: Calvert Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
TWIN Z COMPANY: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
U.S. BANK: Court Trims Claims in Pacific Life's Amended Class Suit
UNIVERSITY OF TAMPA: Court Enters Final Judgment in D'Amario Suit
USAA GENERAL: Court Dismisses Epstein Class Suit With Prejudice
VERVE LABS: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
VINNIE'S AUTO COLLISION: Guerrero Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
VIVIANO CONSULTING: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Dismissal of Riley's Song-Beverly Claims Affirmed
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Punitive Damages Calculations in Riley Vacated
WALGREEN PHARMACY: Gamarro Suit Removed to C.D. California
XELERO TECHNOLOGY: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
YUMMERS PET SUPPLY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
*********
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Safeway Denies Allegations in Stewart Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 10, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 18, 2022, that
Safeway Inc. denies plaintiffs' claim and is vigorously defending
itself in the putative class action complaint entitled Schearon
Stewart and Jason Stewart v. Safeway Inc. pending in Circuit Court,
County of Multnomah, State of Oregon.
The complaint alleges that Safeway engaged in unfair trade
practices, in violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act
(ORS 646.608), regarding the sale of certain meat products in 2015
and 2016 in the state of Oregon with its "Buy One, Get One Free"
and similar promotions.
Safeway denies plaintiffs' claim and is vigorously defending itself
in the matter.
The Company has recorded an estimated liability for this matter.
Albertsons Companies, Inc. is an American grocery company founded
and headquartered in Boise, Idaho. The company merged with Safeway
Inc. in January 2015.
ALLIANCE FIBER: Judgments in Bushansky & Khaki Class Suits Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, Plaintiff and Respondent v.
ALLIANCE FIBER OPTIC PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Defendants and
Respondents; ERIC ALAN ISAACSON, Intervenor and Appellant. BAHMAN
KHAKI, Plaintiff and Respondent v. ALLIANCE FIBER OPTIC PRODUCTS,
INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents; ERIC ALAN ISAACSON,
Intervenor and Appellant, Case Nos. H047100, H047101 (Cal. App.),
the Court of Appeals of California for the Sixth District affirms
the trial court's judgments entered in two shareholder class
actions arising from Corning Inc.'s acquisition of Alliance.
Intervenor Isaacson appeals from judgments entered in two
shareholder class actions arising from Corning's acquisition of
Alliance. Isaacson contends the trial court erroneously granted
final approval of the negotiated settlement: in Isaacson's view,
the court underestimated the materiality of insider trading by
Alliance's CEO -- discovered only after the acquisition -- both to
Alliance shareholders deciding whether to accept Corning's tender
offer and to the strength of shareholder claims released through
the settlement.
Alliance was a publicly traded Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Sunnyvale, California. It designed,
manufactured and marketed a broad range of high-performance fiber
optic components and integrated modules for the optical network
equipment market. By at least mid-2015, Alliance's earnings were
trending downward. By at least late 2014, Alliance had attracted
interest as an acquisition target.
Four parties -- Corning, Party A, Party B, and Party C -- indicated
interest in acquiring Alliance in late 2014 and early 2015. By May
2015, Parties A, B, and C had indicated to Alliance that they were
no longer interested. It was on April 7, 2016, that Corning and
Alliance publicly announced that they had entered into a merger
agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, on that day Corning commenced
a tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding Alliance shares
at a price of $18.50 per share in an all-cash transaction valued at
approximately $305 million.
On April 21, 2016, Corning filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission a Tender Offer Statement on Schedule TO and a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 relating to
the tender offer. On April 22, 2016, Stephen Bushansky filed a
shareholder class action challenging the merger in Santa Clara
County Superior Court. Three additional shareholder class actions
followed, the last of which was filed by Bahman Khaki on May 6,
2016.
In Bushansky's operative First Amended Complaint, which was filed
on April 29, 2016, Bushansky alleged that Alliance's directors
negotiated an inadequate tender offer price. Specifically, he
alleged that Alliance's directors breached their fiduciary duties
of care, loyalty, independence, candor, fair dealing, and good
faith because, with a financial interest in securing a merger, they
failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that stockholders
received fair value for their shares and failed to provide
shareholders with sufficient information about the tender offer to
make an informed decision about the proposed transaction. He
alleged that Corning and a subsidiary aided and abetted the breach
of fiduciary duties. Khaki pled substantially similar claims.
On May 10, 2016, the Plaintiffs initiated settlement negotiations
by sending a demand letter to the Defendants in an effort to
resolve the actions through a settlement. On May 26, 2016, the
parties reached a settlement agreement in principle, which they
memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The deadline
for Alliance's shareholders to decide whether to tender their
shares was June 3, 2016. Corning's tender offer was successful. On
June 6, 2016, Alliance became an indirect wholly owned subsidiary
of Corning.
After completing confirmatory discovery, the parties executed a
settlement agreement in August 2017. Pursuant to the settlement
agreement, Alliance: (1) had made supplemental disclosures; (2) had
waived a standstill provision in an agreement with a specific third
party; and (3) would be responsible for the costs of disseminating
notice to the settlement class for the purposes of securing
settlement. In exchange, the Plaintiffs and the putative settlement
class would be subject to a release of claims. Further, they agreed
to cap their anticipated request for attorneys' fees and litigation
expenses at $2 million. The Defendants retained the right to oppose
the fee request.
The trial court granted preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement on Jan. 29, 2019. First, the court reasoned that
Plaintiffs had provided an analysis sufficient to "support the
conclusion that the standstill waiver provided some value to
shareholders." Second, it preliminarily concluded that disclosure
of the standstill provided "material value" to shareholders. Third,
although the release was not "narrow," the Plaintiffs conducted an
adequate investigation to enable them to determine that
"shareholders do not likely possess any meritorious claims
connected to the transaction, other than those addressed by the
settlement.
After notice was given to the class, the Plaintiffs moved for final
approval of the proposed settlement and for an award of $500,000 in
fees and expenses.
Isaacson filed an objection to the final approval motion. He argued
that the settlement provided no substantial benefit to the class:
(1) the standstill waiver was, "at best, a minor benefit;" and (2)
because the standstill provision was waived, disclosure of the
standstill provision provided no additional benefit to
stockholders. Further, he asserted that the Plaintiffs did not
conduct an adequate investigation, such that they did not secure
adequate assurance that the broad release would not extend to
unintended, and valuable, claims.
Bushansky, Khaki, and the Defendants replied to Isaacson's
objection. Nevertheless, on the eve of the final approval hearing,
Khaki withdrew his support for the settlement. On the same day,
Isaacson filed a motion to intervene to preserve his appellate
rights.
Following the final approval hearing, the court entered a written
order granting the final approval motion on May 2, 2019. The trial
court awarded Bushansky $238,916.50 of his requested $500,000 in
fees, with $1,000 of the reduced amount to be paid to Bushansky as
an incentive award.
On May 2, 2019, the court entered judgment in both the Bushansky
and Khaki actions pursuant to its order finally approving the
settlement.
On June 14, 2019, the court granted Isaacson's motion to intervene
"for the sole purpose of preserving Isaacson's standing to appeal."
Isaacson timely appealed in both the Bushansky and Khaki actions.
Finding no abuse of discretion, the Court of Appeals affirms. It
holds that the trial court concluded that the value produced by the
settlement, though limited, was sufficient to support the
settlement because the consideration constituted a fair exchange
for the release of claims in all of the circumstances. Isaacson has
not shown that the trial court abused its discretion in making that
determination.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 19, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4ft92x6j from Leagle.com.
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Partially Consolidates Yip & Hamilton Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, TIFFANY YIP, et al., Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A., Defendant. A.H. Hamilton, an individual, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A., Defendant, Case Nos. 2:21-cv-01254-ART-EJY,
2:22-cv-00374-RFB-EJY (D. Nev.), Judge Anne R. Traum of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada grants the Defendant's
Motion to Consolidate the collective action with Hamilton v. Bank
of America, N.A., 2:22-cv-00374-RFB-EJY, a class action.
The Plaintiffs filed the case on July 1, 2021. On Dec. 22, 2021,
the case was consolidated with another collective action, Vance, et
al. v. Bank of America, N.A., 2:21-cv-02149-RFB-BNW, pursuant to a
stipulation by the plaintiffs in both cases and Bank of America.
The Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on March 21,
2022, with the additional parties which now total 224 individuals.
According to the FAC, Bank of America was contracted to be the
exclusive provider of the Nevada Department of Employment, Training
& Rehabilitation's benefit programs, including unemployment
insurance, disability insurance, paid family leave, pandemic
unemployment assistance, and pandemic emergency unemployment
compensation benefits (collectively "DETR benefits"). Notably, Bank
of America allegedly promised that debit cardholders would receive
Bank of America's "Zero-Liability coverage" for cases of fraud.
Bank of America allegedly issued debit cards for DETR benefits
which utilized only the magnetic stripe technology. The Plaintiffs
allege that the magnetic stripe technology failed to adequately
respond to fraud claims. The FAC describes the harms experienced by
each of the 224 individual plaintiffs, including home evictions due
to inability to pay rent for lack of access to their DETR
benefits.
The FAC includes 12 causes of action: (1) violations of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA"); (2) Due Process claims
under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; (3) Due
Process claims under the Nevada Due Process Clause; (4) violations
of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (5) negligence and
negligence per se; (6) breach of contract; (7) breach of implied
contract; (8) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing; (9) breach of fiduciary duty; (10) breach of contract as
third-party beneficiaries; (11) breach of implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing as third-party beneficiaries; and (12)
unjust enrichment and money had and received.
Plaintiff A.M. Hamilton filed his putative class action complaint
on March 1, 2022. The Hamilton Complaint begins by describing Bank
of America's contract with DETR and how the Covid-19 pandemic
placed a massive strain on the unemployment system. It then sets
forth allegations concerning Bank of America's policies and actions
after Bank of America ceased its role administering DETR benefits
in June 2021.
Mr. Hamilton describes how he applied for unemployment in 2020,
received a debit card from Bank of America, and "had no problem
with the program" before he accepted a job offer and destroyed his
debit card. He then allegedly received a Form 1099 from DETR
showing that he had been paid $3,000 by DETR in January of 2022.
Bank of America failed to notify Hamilton of the payment despite
having his contact information. After Hamilton was unable to access
to his Bank of America account, he filed a fraud claim with DETR,
but never heard back from DETR or Bank of America and cannot access
his account.
The Hamilton Complaint sets forth two proposed classes: the Zero
Liability Class and the Remainder Funds Class. The Zero Liability
Class is defined as "All Nevada unemployment insurance debit card
account customers of Bank of America who suffered a loss based upon
an unauthorized transaction." The Remainder Funds Class is defined
as "All Nevada unemployment insurance debit card account customers
of Bank of America who had funds remaining in their account as of
the date of filing of the Class Action Complaint."
The Hamilton Complaint brings four claims: (1) breach of contract
for the Zero Liability Class; (2) breach of contract for the
Remainder Funds Class; (3) unjust enrichment and money had and
received for both classes; and (4) violations of the EFTA for the
Zero Liability Class.
On April 11, 2022, Bank of America filed a Motion to Consolidate
for pretrial purposes in both this case and Hamilton. The
Plaintiffs in both this case and Hamilton oppose consolidation and
proposed the alternative of staying this case until the issue of
class certification is decided in Hamilton. The parties in both
cases have stipulated that Bank of America's anticipated motion or
motions to dismiss are due 30 days after this Court decides the
instant Motion to Consolidate.
Judge Traum concludes that there is significant overlap in law and
fact between the claims in this case and in Hamilton. Although
consolidation of an individual action with a class action will not
automatically be denied on that basis, in the instant matter, she
finds that this is a factor that weighs against full consolidation.
There is efficiency gained by preserving the separate character of
this case for those who do wish to opt out of Hamilton.
Judge Traum finds that pretrial consolidation is warranted for the
purposes of the overlapping claims, namely: (1) breach of contract;
(2) unjust enrichment and money had and received; and (3)
violations of the EFTA. In its anticipated motions to dismiss, Bank
of America may address the overlapping claims jointly. Bank of
America must clearly identify which arguments are directed at which
claim. Discovery on the overlapping claims will occur jointly.
In view of the foregoing, this case is partially consolidated with
Hamilton for pretrial purposes as described.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mwdzj5ch from Leagle.com.
BED BATH: Bragar Eagel Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.
(NASDAQ: BBBY), and Sema4 Holdings Corp. Stockholders have until
the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead
plaintiff.
Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. (NASDAQ: BBBY)
Class Period: March 25, 2022 - August 18, 2022
On March 6, 2022, through his investment firm RC Ventures LLC, Ryan
Cohen, the billionaire co-founder of Chewy Inc. who also serves as
chairman of GameStop Corp., sent a letter to Bed Bath & Beyond's
board which announced that he owned a 9.8% stake in Bed Bath &
Beyond and in which he criticized the Company's management.
On this news Bed Bath & Beyond stock to closed 34% higher on March
7, 2022 compared to its close on March 4, 2022, the previous
trading day, on extremely heavy trading volume.
On March 25, 2022, Bed Bath & Beyond added three new directors
appointed by Ryan Cohen's investment firm, RC Ventures LLC.
On August 15, 2022, Ryan Cohen, through his investment firm RC
Ventures LLC, announced in an SEC filing purchases of over one
million January 2023 call options with exercise prices at $60, $75,
and $80-significantly higher than Bed Bath & Beyond shares were
trading.
On this news, Bed Bath & Beyond stock closed 29% higher on August
16, 2022 compared to its close on August 15, 2022, on extremely
heavy trading volume.
Then, on August 18, 2022, Ryan Cohen, through his investment firm
RC Ventures LLC, announced that he would sell his entire stake in
Bed Bath & Beyond. Also on August 18, 2022, Bloomberg published
an article entitled "Bed Bath & Beyond Taps Kirkland & Ellis for
Help Addressing Debt Load" which revealed the Company hired a law
firm for help with its debt.
On this news, Bed Bath & Beyond shares fell $4.53 per share, or
19%, to close at $18.55 per share on August 18, 2022, on extremely
heavy trading volume. Bed Bath & Beyond shares continued to drop on
August 19, 2022, falling $7.52 per share, or 40%, from its August
18, 2022 close, to close at $11.03 per share, on extremely heavy
trading volume.
On August 19, 2022, Bed Bath & Beyond stock plunged to a new low of
$9.68, dropping another 52.6% from the previous day.
Bed Bath & Beyond's stock price continued to decline over the next
two trading days, falling an additional 16.23% to close at $9.24
per share on August 22, 2022, and falling another 4.98% to close at
$8.78 on August 23, 2022, dropping over 70% from August 17's high
price of $30 per share in five trading days after Defendants dumped
their shares.
Insiders profited at least $110 million from their Insider sales
from August 16 to August 17, 2022.
For more information on the Bed Bath & Beyond class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/BBBY
About Bragar Eagel
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Omori's Bid for Exclusion of Affidavits Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALAN THOMAS OMORI and LINFEI YANG, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRANDEIS
UNIVERSITY Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-11021-NMG (D. Mass.),
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts denies the Plaintiffs' motion for
exclusion or for additional discovery.
The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action against Brandeis
to recover tuition and fees collected from students for the Spring,
2020 semester. Brandeis moved for summary judgment on the
Plaintiffs' remaining claims on April 1, 2022, to which the
Plaintiffs submitted their opposition on May 4, 2022. That same
day, the Plaintiffs submitted this pending motion seeking exclusion
of certain affidavits or, in the alternative, additional discovery.
Brandeis opposed the motion shortly thereafter.
The Plaintiffs first move, under Fed R. Civ. P. 37, to exclude the
affidavits of eight individuals submitted by Brandeis in support of
its motion for summary judgment. They aver that exclusion is
appropriate because Brandeis failed to disclose the eight affiants
properly.
The Plaintiffs admit that four of the challenged affiants --
Dorothy Hodgson, Lynne Rosansky, Samuel Solomon and Lois Stanley --
were disclosed in the Defendant's Responses to their First Set of
Interrogatories in November 2021. As a result, they knew of those
four individuals and that they were members of the Brandeis
COVID-19 Task Force. Thus, there was no deficiency in their
disclosure and no prejudice to the Plaintiffs from Brandeis
submitting their affidavits in support of its motion for summary
judgment.
Brandeis has agreed to withdraw two of the remaining affidavits
that had been included with its motion for summary judgment. The
individuals who supplied those affidavits, Haley Rosenfeld and
Brian Koslowski, attested to limited facts, none of which was
dispositive to the motion for summary judgment.
The final affidavits to which the Plaintiffs object are those filed
on behalf of Matthew Sheehy and Susan Lichtman. The disclosure of
those affiants on April 1, 2022, one day after the end of fact
discovery, is not justified. It is also, however, harmless.
Brandeis points out that the Plaintiffs did not notice depositions
of anyone disclosed in its initial disclosures or interrogatory
responses prior to the close of fact discovery. In addition, the
testimony provided by Sheehy and Lichtman is of relatively minor
import and could, in any event, be replaced by testimony from
witnesses who were timely disclosed. In these circumstances, the
severe exclusionary penalty of Rule 37(c)(1) is unwarranted.
As an alternative to exclusion of the challenged affidavits, the
Plaintiffs seek additional discovery, including further e-discovery
and depositions, under Rule 56(d).
Judge Gorton finds that additional facts related to the limited
testimony of Sheehy and Lichtman would not pose a genuine dispute
of material fact with respect to the motion for summary judgment.
The vague invocation of potential facts related to the expectations
of administrators and students, or to fee information, does not
constitute a plausible basis to conclude that specified, material
facts probably exist. Even if they did exist, those are precisely
the kind of facts that the Plaintiffs could have discovered through
timely and diligent attention to obtaining discovery before
Brandeis moved for summary judgment.
For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs' motion for exclusion or
for additional discovery is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mu35b2se from Leagle.com.
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Summary Judgment Bid in Omori Suit Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALAN THOMAS OMORI and LINFEI YANG, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRANDEIS
UNIVERSITY Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-11021-NMG (D. Mass.),
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts allows in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims.
The putative class action arises out of the decision by Brandeis to
retain the full tuition and fees collected from students for the
Spring 2020 semester despite closing its on-campus facilities and
transitioning from in-person to online learning in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiffs assert that the failure of
Brandeis to reimburse students for a purported tuition differential
between in-person and online education, as well as for certain
fees, constitutes breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of other
students, brought this four-count complaint, alleging breach of
contract, both express and implied (Counts I & II), unjust
enrichment (Count III) and conversion (Count IV). They seek to
recover from Brandeis tuition and fees allegedly paid in
consideration for "in-person instruction and use of campus
facilities" which were denied to the students during the second
half of the Spring 2020 academic term.
In November 2020, Brandeis moved to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim. That motion was allowed with respect to
Count IV but otherwise denied. Brandeis now moves for summary
judgment on the remaining claims: breach of contract and unjust
enrichment. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Judge Gorton divides
his consideration of the breach of contract claims between tuition
refunds and the fees that the Plaintiffs seek to have reimbursed
and then addresses their claim for unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges two claims for breach of
contract: for breach of an express contract and for breach of an
implied contract. Judge Gorton addresses only whether a reasonable
jury could find breach of an implied contract for an in-person
education. He finds that neither the FRA nor the Schedule
constitute an express agreement precluding the implied contract
that the Plaintiffs assert.
Because neither the FRA nor the Schedule precludes an implied right
to an in-person education, Judge Gorton considers whether such a
guarantee may be implied by the parties' contractual agreement.
Viewed in its totality, he determines that the evidence cited by
the Plaintiffs creates a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether they had an implied contractual right to an in-person
education in exchange for tuition.
Judge Gorton also concludes that Brandeis' materials do not support
its claimed discretion to shift all instruction online, without
consequence, in the event of a public health emergency. It would be
unreasonable to construe the inapposite and limited provisions
identified by Brandeis so broadly as to allow it to alter the
character of its core educational offerings so fundamentally.
Brandeis insists that, in any event, the Plaintiffs will be unable
to prove damages for any breach of contract they allege. To the
extent that the Plaintiffs are able to establish a consistent
difference in cost, Judge Gorton says they could then apply that
differential to the undergraduate program in which they
participated. Because the educational malpractice doctrine
precludes consideration of educational quality, the Plaintiffs may
not compare the cost of an in-person Brandeis education to
potentially inapposite online instruction at another university.
In light of the full tuition paid by the Plaintiffs and the partial
in-person instruction provided by Brandeis, Judge Gorton holds that
the Plaintiffs may be entitled to restitution of the difference
between the amount of tuition paid and the objective value of the
online education they ultimately received. Determination of that
difference would be subject to the same principles and
limitations.
For the reasons he discussed previously with respect to tuition,
Judge Gorton concludes that neither the FRA and Schedule nor the
Bulletin and Handbook preclude the existence of a nonillusory,
implied promise of in-person education in return for fees. However,
he says there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
Brandeis had and/or breached any contractual obligations with
respect to Studio Fee. Thus, Brandeis' motion for summary judgment
will be allowed as to the Processing Fee, the Undergraduate Fee and
the Senior Program fee but will be denied as to the Studio Fee.
Finally, Judge Gorton finds that the Plaintiffs have an adequate
remedy at law even though the ultimate resolution of their claim
for breach of contract remains uncertain. Thus, the University's
motion for summary judgment on the claim for unjust enrichment will
be allowed.
For the foregoing reasons, Brandeis' motion for summary judgment is
allowed as to Claim I (breach of express contract) and Claim III
(unjust enrichment); allowed as to the Processing Fee, the
Undergraduate Fee and the Senior Program Fee at issue in Claim II
(breach of implied contract); but denied as to the tuition and
Studio Fee at issue in Claim II.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3hnj3y9h from Leagle.com.
CALIFORNIA: Parties in Fowler v. Lanier to File Joint Status Report
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FOWLER PACKING COMPANY, INC., et al., Plaintiffs v.
DAVID M. LANIER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00106-DAD-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California orders the parties to file a joint
status report, within 14 days from the date of entry of his Order,
informing the Court of their intentions and addressing the impact
of the changed circumstances.
On Jan. 22, 2016, Fowler and Gerawan Farming, Inc., filed the
complaint initiating the action for declaratory and injunctive
relief. Specifically, they challenge the constitutionality of
subsections 226.2(g)(2) and (g)(5) of the California Labor Code,
which became effective on Jan. 1, 2016. In their prayer for relief,
the Plaintiffs seek a court order declaring those subsections
unconstitutional, severing those subsections from that statute, and
enjoining the enforcement of those subsections. In September 2017,
the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Unfortunately, for many reasons, Judge Drozd has been unable to
issue an order ruling on those motions since their submission on
Nov. 21, 2017. However, while the cross-motions for summary
judgment have been pending, the challenged subsections have been
automatically repealed as provided by the statute. Thus, it appears
that the Plaintiffs' complaint for declaratory and injunctive
relief has been rendered moot.
In addition, the gravamen of the Plaintiffs' challenge is that
those subsections created a targeted carve-out to preclude only
Fowler and Gerawan from asserting Section 226.2's safe-harbor
affirmative defense in the two lawsuits that were pending against
them at that time: Amaro v. Gerawan Farming, Inc., No.
1:14-cv-00147 (E.D. Cal.) and Aldapa v. Fowler Packing Company,
Inc., No. 1:15-cv-00420 (E.D. Cal.). Each of those lawsuits have
since been resolved by way of settlement. In Amaro, the Court
granted final approval of the parties' class action settlement and
closed that case on Oct. 13, 2020. In Aldapa, the plaintiff filed a
motion for preliminary approval of the parties' class action
settlement on Aug. 4, 2022, and that motion is now pending before
District Judge Ana de Alba.
In light of these changed circumstances, and given the fact that
the parties in this action have not submitted any substantive
filings since April 16, 2019, Judge Drozd finds it appropriate at
this time to ascertain the parties' intentions with regard to this
case. To that end, he directs that, within 14 days from the date of
entry of his order, the parties will file a joint status report
informing the Court of their intentions and addressing the impact
of the changed circumstances noted on this case. Alternatively,
within the same time period, the parties may file a joint
stipulation or request under Rule 41 to dismiss this action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 19, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mpm92h54 from Leagle.com.
COMPASS MINERALS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 20
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit seeking to represent purchasers of Compass
Minerals International, Inc. (NYSE: CMP) common stock between
October 31, 2017 and November 18, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Captioned Local 295 IBT Employer Group Welfare Fund v.
Compass Minerals International, Inc., No. 22-cv-2432 (D. Kan.), the
Compass Minerals class action lawsuit charges Compass Minerals and
certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Compass Minerals class action lawsuit, please
provide your information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-compass-minerals-international-inc-class-action-lawsuit-cmp.html
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the Compass Minerals class action lawsuit
must be filed with the court no later than December 20, 2022.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Compass Minerals mines and produces essential
minerals, including salt for winter roadway safety and other
consumer, industrial, and agricultural uses, and specialty plant
nutrition minerals that improve the quality and yield of crops.
During the Class Period, Compass Minerals operated three business
segments: the Salt segment, the Plant Nutrition North America
segment, and the Plant Nutrition South America segment. Within the
Salt segment, Compass Minerals operated the largest underground
rock salt mine in the world in Goderich, Ontario, Canada, which
Compass Minerals routinely hailed as the "crown jewel" of its asset
portfolio. Prior to the start of the Class Period, defendants
announced that Compass Minerals was investing in upgrades to the
mining system at Goderich, from drilling-and-blasting to continuous
mining and continuous haulage ("CMCH"), primarily in an effort to
reduce costs and improve profitability.
The Compass Minerals class action lawsuit alleges that defendants
throughout the Class Period repeatedly assured investors that the
CMCH upgrade at the Goderich mine was on track to materially reduce
costs and boost Compass Minerals' operating results starting in
2018. However, defendants' statements were misleading because they
failed to tell investors that costs at the Goderich mine were
increasing rather than decreasing. The Compass Materials class
action lawsuit further alleges that defendants also misrepresented
the amount of salt Compass Minerals was able to produce at Goderich
using the new CMCH equipment and failed to disclose how the known
and ongoing production shortfalls it was experiencing were
reasonably expected to reduce its future operating income.
On February 13, 2018, Compass Minerals announced its financial
results for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2017. On the following
day, Compass Minerals held an earnings call for analysts and
investors to discuss the fourth quarter results. Following the
release of the fourth quarter 2017 results, Compass Minerals' stock
price declined by more than 9% over the following two trading
days.
Then, on August 7, 2018, Compass Minerals announced its second
quarter of fiscal 2018 results, attributing the decrease in Salt
operating earnings to various costs overruns, unrelated to the CMCH
transition. Following the release of the second quarter 2018
results, the price of Compass Minerals stock declined by 4.3%.
Next, October 23, 2018, Compass Minerals pre-announced third
quarter 2018 financial results that were significantly below
expectations and lowered its outlook for the remainder of the year.
On this news, the price of Compass Minerals stock declined by more
than 30% over the following two trading days.
Finally, on November 19, 2018, Compass Energy announced the abrupt
termination of its CEO, defendant Francis J. Malecha. On this news,
the price of Compass Minerals stock declined by an additional 8%
over the following three days, further damaging investors.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by
clicking here.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Compass
Minerals common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment
as lead plaintiff in the Compass Minerals class action lawsuit. A
lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the Compass
Minerals class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law
firm of its choice to litigate the Compass Minerals class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Compass Minerals class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.[GN]
ESTABLISHMENT LABS: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an
investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Establishment Labs Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ:ESTA)
resulting from allegations that the Company may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Establishment Labs securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9304 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On October 19, 2022, market analyst Hindenburg
Research published a report entitled "Establishment Labs: A
Financially Stretched Silicone Safety Charade" which alleged, among
other things, that "[d]espite claims of superior safety, we found
that almost all key safety studies touted by the company have
conflicts of interest, with many undisclosed or under-disclosed."
Further, the report alleged that "Establishment claims to have
successfully piloted a 'revolutionary' technique to place implants
through the armpit using local anesthesia (instead of general),
claiming the technique will greatly expand its Total Addressable
Market (TAM). This type of insertion has been reported since the
1970s and has been widely available for almost 20 years. It has
failed to gain traction due to safety risks."
The report also alleged that "[b]eyond undisclosed safety
questions, we have also identified financial risks. Import/export
records show that Establishment ships product to entities formerly
owned by the CEO and his family, raising questions of conflicts of
interest."
On this news, Establishment Labs' stock price fell sharply during
intraday trading on October 19, 2022.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.[GN]
FCA US: Court Denies Flynn's Bid to Reconsider Taxation of Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN FLYNN, GEORGE BROWN, KELLY BROWN, MICHAEL KEITH,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC and HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-855-SMY (S.D. Ill.), Judge Staci M.
Yandle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of
Taxation of Costs.
The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action against FCA and
Harman, asserting consumer fraud claims related to an alleged
design defect in the Uconnect system manufactured by Harman and
installed in some of FCA's 2013-2015 model vehicles. After over
four years of litigation, the Court granted the Defendants' motion
to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed
the case with prejudice. The Seventh Circuit affirmed on appeal but
modified the Judgment to reflect a dismissal for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction without leave to amend.
Following the mandate from the Seventh Circuit, the Court granted
in part FCA and Harmon's Bill of Costs and corresponding Motions
for Taxation of Costs and awarded FCA $86,086.81 in costs and
Harman $93,157.96 in costs.
Now pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration of Taxation of Costs. The Plaintiffs assert that
the Court's award of costs was based on an evaluation of the record
that was both significantly incomplete and demonstrably incorrect.
Specifically, they argue that the Court should consider the full
record of this litigation which contains "overwhelming evidence"
establishing that class members were injured by overpaying for
their vehicles.
Judge Yandle holds that while the Plaintiffs disagree with the
Court's order awarding costs, they fail to identify a manifest
error of law or fact committed by the Court in doing so.
Accordingly, she denies their motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 19, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/33a3eztc from Leagle.com.
FORGEROCK INC: Juan Monteverde Probes Possible Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
ForgeRock, Inc. (FORG), relating to its proposed acquisition by
Thoma Bravo. Under the terms of the agreement, FORG shareholders
are expected to receive $23.25 in cash per share they own
About Monteverde & Associates
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as a Rising Star
and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities Litigation. He has also
been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated
Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a
significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under
Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter,
our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal
of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United
States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407
(2019). Also, we have recovered or secured over a dozen cash common
funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action
cases. [GN]
FRAME LA: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Sep. 15, 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Portia Mason v. FRAME LA
Brands, LLC et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-04499-AB-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order granting stipulation
to enter briefing schedule for plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
-- The deadline for the Plaintiff to September 15, 2023
file her motion for class
certification is:
-- The Defendant's opposition is October 6, 2023
due on:
-- The Plaintiff's reply is due October 27, 2023
on:
-- The Hearing is set for: November 17, 2023.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3COO4to at no extra charge.[CC]
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Trivedi Securities Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Trivedi v. General Electric Company et al., Case
No. 1:22-cv-08453, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, Boston, on Oct. 13, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:22-cv-11746-PBS to the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over Defendants' alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Dodd-Frank Act, the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Federal Tort
Claims Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act.
General Electric Company is a globally diversified technology and
financial services company. The Company's products and services
include aircraft engines, power generation, water processing, and
household appliances to medical imaging, business and consumer
financing, and industrial products.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
GENPACT LLC: Bland Files Suit Over Management Trainees' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LYNETTE BLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. GENPACT LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-08687 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022) is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing
to compensate Plaintiff and the members of the Class for all hours
worked over 40 in each and every workweek.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant on January 4, 2022, and
commenced work on January 17, 2022 as a Management Trainee -
Disputes Investigations Specialist working remotely from her home
and reporting to the Jacksonville, Florida Genpact office.
The Plaintiff claims that she regularly worked over 40 hours in a
workweek while employed by the Defendant. During the workweek of
February 7, 2022, Plaintiff estimates that she worked about 43
hours and Defendant did not pay her any compensation and no
overtime premium for any hours worked above 40 in the week.
Genpact LLC is a professional services firm which trains workers
for positions at other companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Palitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
477 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (800) 616-4000
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
6916 West Linebaugh Avenue, Suite 101
Tampa, FL 33625
Telephone: (813) 639-9366
Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
E-mail: Mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
- and -
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
GEORGIA: Deaf Individuals Win Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON COBB, MARY HILL,
and JOSEPH NETTLES, v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
and NAIL, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Georgia
Department of Community Supervision, Case No. 1:19-cv-03285-WMR
(N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge William M. Ray II entered an order:
-- denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and
-- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs are deaf individuals on parole or probation in the
State of Georgia.
Because the Plaintiffs are on parole or probation in Georgia, they
are under the supervision of the Georgia Department of Community
Supervision (DCS), which also supervises other deaf and hard of
hearing individuals.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MVQEmc at no extra charge.[CC]
GRUBHUB INC: Court Denies Bid to Lift Stay in Lynn Scott Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LYNN SCOTT, LLC, and THE FARMER'S WIFE, LLC, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
GRUBHUB, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-6334 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Marvin E. Aspen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denies the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Lift the Stay.
The Plaintiffs move to lift the stay the Court entered in March
2021 pending resolution of an overlapping class action, CO Craft,
LLC dba Freshcraft v. Grubhub Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01327 (D.
Colo.).
In May 2020, Freshcraft filed the Colorado Action on behalf of
itself and a putative class of restaurants, alleging that Grubhub
falsely advertised that the restaurants were closed. It alleged
that Grubhub steered business to Grubhub-partnered restaurants and
away from unaffiliated restaurants like Freshcraft by falsely
advertising that unaffiliated restaurants were closed or did not
deliver, when they were in fact open and accepting deliveries.
In October 2020, the Plaintiffs filed this case alleging different
misconduct against Grubhub. The gist of their Complaint is that
Grubhub pretends to be partnered with unaffiliated restaurants like
them by misappropriating their trademarks. Diners then suffer poor
dining experiences when ordering from the Plaintiffs' restaurants
through Grubhub and blame the Plaintiffs, causing reputational
damage.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class consisting of
"all restaurants included without their permission on Grubhub,
Seamless, LevelUp, AllMenus, MenuPages, or any other part of the
Grubhub online platform." They bring one count under Section 43(a)
of the Lanham Act and seek, among other things, disgorgement of
Grubhub's profits.
In January 2021, Freshcraft amended its complaint in the Colorado
Action, expanding its putative class to include all unaffiliated
restaurants, with certain exclusions not relevant here. With this
amendment, the Colorado Action could potentially resolve several
aspects of the Plaintiffs' claims. Grubhub then asked the Court to
stay the case pending resolution of the Colorado Action,
representing that the Colorado Action had settled (the "Original
Settlement"), subject to court approval.
The Court granted the stay in March 2021. It initially stayed the
case for two months. But the motion for approval of the settlement
in the Colorado Action remained pending for more than a year.
During that time, the Plaintiffs sought to intervene in the
Colorado Action, and the Court extended the stay in this case by
setting the case over as the parties continued to inform it about
the Colorado Action.
In July 2022, the District of Colorado granted the Plaintiffs in
this case leave to intervene in the Colorado Action and denied
preliminary approval of the Original Settlement without prejudice.
The District of Colorado agreed with the Plaintiffs, reasoning that
"contrary to the parties' arguments, by releasing any equitable
relief without securing any monetary relief, the proposed
Settlement would likely preclude the Lynn Scott plaintiffs and
putative class from pursuing monetary relief under the Lanham Act,
particularly in the form of disgorgement of profits." It therefore
denied preliminary approval without prejudice "until the parties
have addressed this issue." It also allowed the Plaintiffs in this
case to intervene in the Colorado Action.
Shortly after the District of Colorado entered its order, the
Plaintiffs filed this Motion, arguing that without a pending
settlement in the Colorado Action, there is no longer any reason
for the stay. But on the same day Grubhub filed its opposition to
the Plaintiffs' Motion, Grubhub, Freshcraft, and Piper Inn, a new
class representative, announced a new settlement (the "Amended
Settlement") in the Colorado Action. The Amended Settlement
expressly exempts disgorgement under the Lanham Act from the
Colorado Action class's release of claims.
Citing the Amended Settlement and the pending motion for
preliminary approval in the Colorado Action, Grubhub asks the Court
to keep the stay in place.
Judge Aspen finds that the circumstances have not "substantially
changed." The Court entered the stay because settlement of the
Colorado Action could both simplify the issues and reduce the
burden of litigation in this case, with minimal prejudice to the
Plaintiffs. Although the District of Colorado did not approve the
Original Settlement, he says the Amended Settlement currently
awaiting approval in the Colorado Action would once again have the
potential to streamline this action and would minimize the burden
upon the parties and the court by avoiding duplicative and
inconsistent litigation. Though the Amended Settlement clarifies
that it will not resolve the entirety of the Plaintiffs' claims in
this case, the Court originally contemplated that even if the
Colorado Action targets a narrower subset of conduct than targeted,
it would warrant a stay. Thus, the circumstances justifying the
stay have not substantially changed.
In addition, all of the Plaintiffs' concerns about the fairness and
adequacy of the Amended Settlement can and will be addressed in the
Colorado Action. The District of Colorado allowed the Plaintiffs to
intervene and denied preliminary approval of the Original
Settlement to protect their interests. The present Court's task is
only determine whether it should continue to wait for what may be a
forthcoming resolution of the Colorado Action to streamline and
simplify its case without unduly prejudicing the Plaintiffs. It
finds that it should. Once again, the Court will reassess after any
orders on the pending motion for preliminary approval of the
Amended Settlement.
For these reasons, Judge Aspen denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Lift the Stay. The status hearing set for Oct. 20, 2022, is
stricken and reset to Jan. 26, 2023, at 10:30 a.m. The parties will
provide a status report on the proceedings in the Colorado Action
by the earlier of (1) seven days after the District of Colorado
resolves the pending motion for preliminary approval of class
settlement or (2) Jan. 12, 2023.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2sm246kj from
Leagle.com.
H. N. FERNANDEZ: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against H. N. Fernandez, Inc.
The case is styled as Joyce Carrico, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. H. N. Fernandez, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08654 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
H. N. Fernandez is located in New Orleans, Louisiana and primarily
operates in the Cafe business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Solomon Nematzadeh, Esq.
NEMATZADEH PLLC
101 Avenue of the Americas, Ste. 9th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Phone: (646) 417-8424
Email: jsn@nematlawyers.com
HANESBRANDS INC: Toussaint Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hanesbrands Inc. The
case is styled as Nicole Toussaint, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Hanesbrands Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00879-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C., Oct. 13, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Hanesbrands Inc. -- https://www.hanes.com/ -- is an American
multinational clothing company based in Winston-Salem, North
Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Martin A. Ramey, Esq.
Joel Robert Rhine, Esq.
RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C.
1612 Military Cutoff Rd., Suite 300
Wilmington, NC 28403
Phone: (910) 772-9960
Fax: (910) 772-9062
Email: mjr@rhinelawfirm.com
jrr@rhinelawfirm.com
- and -
Danielle Lynn Perry, Esq.
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
MASON LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Fax: (202) 429-2294
Email: dperry@masonllp.com
gmason@masonllp.com
lwhite@masonllp.com
HAZEL AND OLIVE: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hazel and Olive, Inc.
The case is styled as Joyce Carrico, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Hazel and Olive, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08674-AT (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hazel and Olive -- https://www.hazelandolive.com/ -- is an online
Womens clothing boutique based out of Rockwall, Texas offering
trendy and affordable dresses, shoes, tops, and all other boutique
fashion necessities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Solomon Nematzadeh, Esq.
NEMATZADEH PLLC
101 Avenue of the Americas, Ste. 9th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Phone: (646) 417-8424
Email: jsn@nematlawyers.com
HCA-IT&S FIELD: Martin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Martin and Troy Goings, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. HCA-IT&S FIELD OPERATIONS, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-23323-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 13, 2022), is brought against
Defendant seeking all relief available under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 for unpaid wages from the Defendant for
overtime work for which they did not receive overtime pay as
required by the FLSA; liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA;
reasonable fees and costs; and any further relief this Court deems
just and equitable.
The Defendant has a uniform policy and practice of consistently
requiring its Provider Solutions Specialist and Consulting
Solutions Specialist to work more than forty hours per week for a
salaried amount without paying them overtime compensation. The
Plaintiffs were not paid any overtime compensation despite the fact
that the members of the Physicians Services Group worked more than
40 hours per week, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed with HCA-IT&S as a "Provider Solutions
Specialists" who assisted with on-boarding providers and their
staff who worked at hospitals within HCA-IT&S. The Plaintiff Goings
was employed with HCA-IT&S as a "Consulting Provider Solutions
Specialists" who assisted with on-boarding providers and their
offices located outside for HCA-IT&S.
HCA-IT&S provides technology and support to physicians who provides
services to hospitals in the East Florida Division, West Florida
Division, Southeast Atlantic Division and North Florida I
Division.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gina Marie Cadogan, Esq.
CADOGAN LAW
300 S. Pine Island Road, Suite 107
Plantation, FL 33324
Phone: 954.606.5891
Facsimile: 877.464.7316
Email: gina@cadoganlaw.com
kathy@cadoganlaw.com
tyler@cadoganlaw.com
HEXAGON MANUFACTURING: Frohlich Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Frohlich, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. HEXAGON MANUFACTURING INTELLIGENCE, INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-01852-JZ (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 13, 2022), is brought challenging
the Defendant's policies and practices that violate the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay overtime premiums.
The Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per work week.
In fact, the Defendant expected Service Engineers to work at least
45 hours per work week. Despite being non-exempt from the overtime
and minimum wage requirements of the FLSA, the Plaintiff was not
paid one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
they worked in excess of 40 per work week. The Defendant knowingly
and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime premiums when
they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek., says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Ohio who has been employed by
Defendant within the last three years as a Service Engineer.
The Defendant is a business-to-business services company that
provides sensor, software and autonomous solutions to industrial
manufacturers and other companies across the country.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 E. 9th St., Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 230-2955
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: jeff@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Phone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
HOST INTERNATIONAL: Court Certifies Three Classes in Lewis Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Debra Lewis, et al., v.
Host International, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00075-JAK-SK
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order
certifying the three classes as follows:
-- LWO Class
"All employees of Host who worked at Los Angeles
International Airport from January 1, 2018 through June 1,
2019, were members of the bargaining unit represented by
UNITE HERE Local 11, and who received less than the cash
wage portion of the cash wage with health benefits amount
under section 10.37.2(a)(2)(1) of the LWO (i.e., less than
$12.08 from January 1, 2018 through June 30, 2018 and less
than $13.75 from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019).
-- Vacation Time Class
"All employees of Host who worked at LAX and were members
of the bargaining unit represented by UNITE HERE Local 11
and who were laid off or "furloughed" in March/April 2020
and were not paid out accrued but unused vacation at the
time of the layoff/furlough."
-- Waiting Time Penalties Class
"Any member of the LWO Class and/or Vacation Time Class
who was laid off or “furloughed” in March-April 2020."
The classes will be represented by Plaintiffs Debra Lewis
and Marlene Mendoza.
Lauren Teukolsky of Teukolsky Law, Joshua Young of Gilbert
& Sackman, and Jeremy Blasi are appointed as class
counsel.
On October 13, 2020, the Plaintiffs Lewis and Marlene Mendoza filed
this putative class action in Los Angeles Superior Court.
On January 5, 2021, Host International removed the action based on
both federal question and diversity jurisdiction.
On January 25, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint. On March 2, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint, which is the operative one.
Host International provides catering services to travelers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N7Ac2l at no extra charge.[CC]
HYATT CORP: Cert. Discovery in Insixiengmay Suit to End May 19
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANICE INSIXIENGMAY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HYATT CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation; HYATT CORPORATION DBA HYATT REGENCY
SACRAMENTO, an unknown association; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02993-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy
L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California continued the deadline to complete Phase I discovery
regarding facts that are relevant to whether the action should be
certified as a class action to May 19, 2023.
The Stipulation and proposed Order is entered into between the
Parties.
The Court entered an Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order on Aug. 3,
2020 providing that Phase I discovery regarding facts that are
relevant to whether the action should be certified as a class
action will be completed within 240 days (i.e., March 31, 2021).
As a result of a prior informal discovery conference on Feb. 19,
2021, with Hon. Deborah Barnes, the Court suggested a stipulation
and order to continue the factual discovery deadline, which was
granted on Feb. 26, 2021, continuing the deadline to June 1, 2021.
The Court further amended the Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order on
May 25, 2021 to continue the Phase I discovery deadline to Aug. 2,
2021 to provide the Defendant with additional time to produce
electronic copies of time and pay records for a sample of employees
the parties agreed to, as the Defendant encountered difficulties in
obtaining the requested data in electronic form.
Thereafter, the Defendant continued to attempt to obtain and
produce the data in electronic form but encountered additional
difficulties.
On July 15, 2021, the Defendant's counsel informed the Plaintiff's
counsel that the Defendant would produce time and pay records from
its hard copies because it was ultimately unable to obtain complete
electronic data. Thereafter, because the Defendant needed
additional time to produce the documents and because the Parties
needed more time for depositions, the parties submitted additional
stipulations and orders to continue the Phase I discovery deadline,
which were granted, making the current deadline Nov. 2, 2022.
The depositions of the Plaintiff and the Rule 30(b)(6) designee of
the Defendant have been completed.
The Parties have agreed to participate in mediation and have a
mediation scheduled for March 20, 2023, with Gig Kyriacou. They
would like to extend the deadline to complete Phase 1 discovery to
60 days after the mediation date to avoid incurring any unnecessary
fees and costs.
Therefore, the Parties, subject to the approval of the Court,
stipulated and agreed as follows: The Court's Amended Pretrial
Scheduling Order will be further amended to continue the deadline
to complete Phase I discovery regarding facts that are relevant to
whether the action should be certified as a class action to May 19,
2023.
Having considered the stipulation and finding good cause, Judge
Nunley so ordered. The Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order will
remain in effect in all other respects.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yeyu8ts5 from Leagle.com.
Galen T. Shimoda -- attorney@shimodalaw.com -- Justin P. Rodriguez
-- jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com -- Brittany V. Berzin --
bberzin@shimodalaw.com -- Shimoda & Rodriguez Law, PC, in Elk
Grove, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff JANICE INSIXIENGMAY, on
behalf of herself and similarly situated employees.
Joseph W. Ozmer II -- jozmer@kcozlaw.com -- J. Scott Carr --
scarr@kcozlaw.com -- KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP, in Los Angeles,
California, Attorneys for Defendants HYATT CORPORATION d/b/a HYATT
REGENCY SACRAMENTO (erroneously sued as both "Hyatt Corporation"
and "Hyatt Corporation dba Hyatt Regency Sacramento).
ILONA INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ilona, Inc. The case
is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly situated persons v. Ilona, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08690-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ilona, Inc. -- https://ilona.com/ -- has been engaged in the
manufacturing, marketing and distribution of prestige cosmetics
products.[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
INTERNATIONAL UNION: McLachlan Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley J. McLachlan and Alex D. Graham, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEVATOR
CONSTRUCTORS, THE GENERAL EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS ANNUITY AND 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN and JOHN
DOES 1-30, Case No. 2:22-cv-04115 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 13, 2022), is
brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 ("ERISA") against the Plan's fiduciaries, which include
International Union of Elevator Constructors ("IUEC" or "Company")
and the General Executive Board of the International Union of
Elevator Constructors and its members during the Class Period
("Board") and the Board of Trustees of the Elevator Constructors
Annuity and 401(k) Retirement Plan and its members during the Class
Period ("Committee") as a result of the Defendants' breach of the
fiduciary duty.
To safeguard Plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA imposes
strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon employers and
other plan fiduciaries. Fiduciaries must act "solely in the
interest of the participants and beneficiaries." The Plan had at
least $2.6 billion dollars in assets under management. At the
Plan's fiscal year end in 2020 and 2019, the Plan had over $4.9
billion dollars and $4.4 billion dollars, respectively, in assets
under management that were/are entrusted to the care of the Plan's
fiduciaries. The December 31, 2020 Report of Independent Auditor of
the Elevator Constructors Annuity and 401(k) Retirement Plan ("2020
Auditor Report") at 3.
The Plan's assets under management qualifies it as a jumbo plan in
the defined contribution plan marketplace, and among the largest
plans in the United States. As a jumbo plan, the Plan had
substantial bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses that
were charged against participants' investments. Defendants,
however, did not try to reduce the Plan's expenses or exercise
appropriate judgment to scrutinize each investment option that was
offered in the Plan to ensure it was prudent.
The Plan is also large in terms of the number of its participants.
From 2016 to 2020, the Plan had between 25,646 and 29,976
participants with account balances. For comparison, according to
information derived from ERISApedia.com's database, a service that
compiles all Form 5500s filed with the Dept. of Labor ("DOL") by
retirement plans, in 2020, there were only 194 defined contribution
plans (401k, 401a, and 403b) in the country with 20,000 to 29,999
participants with account balances. Accordingly, the Plan had
substantial bargaining power to negotiate favorable recordkeeping
and administration fees.
The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period, the
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined
under the ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the
Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter
alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's
investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment
option was prudent, in terms of cost and performance; and (2)
failing to control the Plan's recordkeeping and administration
("RKA") costs.
The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duty of prudence, in violation the ERISA. Their actions
were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the
Plan and its participants millions of dollars. Based on this
conduct, the Plaintiffs assert claims against the Defendants for
breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence (Count One) and failure to
monitor fiduciaries (Count Two), says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan.
International Union of Elevator Constructors (IUEC) is a named
fiduciary of the Plan with a principal place of business being 19
Campus Boulevard, Suite 200, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Phone: (717) 233-4101
Fax: (717) 233-4103
Email: donr@capozziadler.com
- and -
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Phone: (610) 890-0200
Fax: (717) 233-4103
Email: markg@capozziadler.com
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Toogood Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Kennetra Toogood, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC5, Case No. 3:22-cv-00551-CHB (W.D. Ky., Oct. 13,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Jefferson Capital Systems -- https://myjcap.com/ -- is one of the
nation's leading purchasers of secured and unsecured consumer
bankruptcies and charged-off receivables.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
JEFFREY L. RICHARDSON: Liberty Files Suit in D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jeffrey L.
Richardson, et al. The case is styled as Liberty Property Holdings
SC LLC, individually, derivatively on behalf of Renaissance Tower
Horizontal Property Regime, Azure Bleu LLC, Jason E. Blosser,
Nicole M. Blosser, Eshellah D. Calhoun, Zachary G. Calhoun, David
DiMaio, Linda DiMaio, Susan H. Ferguson, Four Parts Whole LLC,
Sharon M. Hubbard, Carol A. Messenger, Jeffrey S. Palmer, Summalin
Inc., Terry J. Tuminello, Shelley Ware, Jonathan S. Williams, and
on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. Jeffrey L.
Richardson, William S. Spears, Brent M. Whitesell, Laurie Z.
Wunderley, Madeline R. Mercer, Catherine M. Gregor, Dennis J.
Sassa, Tracy A. Meadows, Peter A. Grusauskas, William Douglas
Management Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08699 (D.S.C., Oct. 13, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Real Property for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Frederick Elliotte Quinn, IV, Esq.
Rachel Igdal, Esq.
THE STEINBERG LAW FIRM LLP
103 Grandview Drive, Suite A
Summerville, SC 29483
Phone: (843) 871-6522
Fax: (843) 871-8565
Email: equinn@steinberglawfirm.com
rigdal@steinberglawfirm.com
JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Due Dec. 15
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Jernigan Capital, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-09575-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Jennifer L. Rochon entered a joint scheduling stipulation and
order:
-- Plaintiff shall move for class Dec. 15, 2022
certification and file any
supporting expert report(s)
by:
-- The Defendants shall depose Feb. 15, 2023
the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's
expert(s) and file any opposition
to Plaintiff's class
certification motion, including
any opposition expert report(s),
by:
-- The Plaintiff shall depose April 14, 2023.
the Defendants' expert(s) and
file any reply, including any
rebuttal expert reports, by:
-- The Defendants shall seek leave April 30, 2023
of Court to file any sur-reply by:
Jernigan is a commercial real estate finance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TpqI4u at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad Johnson, Esq.
Noam Mandel, Esq.
Desiree Cummings, Esq.
Jonathan Zweig, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1832
New York, NY 10170
Telephone: (212) 432-5100
E-mail: chadj@rgrdlaw.com
noam@rgrdlaw.com
dcummings@rgrdlaw.com
jzweig@rgrdlaw.com
The Counsel for the Defendants are Jernigan Capital, Inc., John A.
Good, Mark O. Decker, James Dondero, Howard A. Silver, Harry J.
Thie and Rebecca Owen:
Matthew L. DiRisio, Esq.
James P. Smith III, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 294-4633
E-mail: mdirisio@winston.com
jpsmith@winston.com
JUSTANSWER LLC: Quamina Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Quamina, Kseniya Godun, Moya Mcdowell, Renee Pettit,
Kristie Nelson, Tasha Davis and Latoya Foust, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. JUSTANSWER LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-06051 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 13, 2022), is brought alleging that,
in connection with membership subscription offers made to
California consumers, the Defendant violated provisions of
California consumer protection law, including the Automatic Renewal
Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the Unfair Competition
Law.
Users can access the JustAnswer website on a standard computer,
such as a desktop or laptop, or a mobile device. However,
JustAnswer also solicits clients through on-line sites such as:
pissedconsumers.com or gethuman.com. There are a variety of links
displayed on these sites that will take the user to the JustAnswer
website. The JustAnswer website displayed after pressing these
links can be confusing to the user as the website will display Just
answer Playstation Support, Just answer Groupon Support, Just
answer Microsoft Support… etc. Some Plaintiffs and class members
actually believe they are speaking with those companies' customer
support departments.
The Plaintiffs used the JustAnswer website to submit a single
question to an "expert" for what they believed would be a one-time
fee of $5, and JustAnswer automatically enrolled them in a costlier
monthly membership. After discovering additional charges to their
credit cards, Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against
JustAnswer, alleging it routinely enrolled online consumers like
them in automatic renewal membership programs without providing
"clear and conspicuous" disclosures and obtaining their
"affirmative consent" as mandated by the Automatic Renewal Law.
Had the Plaintiffs known that the Defendant was going to enroll her
in an automatically renewing membership program without her
knowledge and consent, she would not have submitted her debit card
information to Defendant and would not have paid any money to
JustAnswer, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs decided to ask legal questions on the JustAnswer
website.
JustAnswer LLC operates a website, www.justanswer.com, on which
users can ask "experts" to answer on a wide variety of topics,
including, among others, medical, legal, tax, veterinary, computer,
and electrical.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 South Beverly Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (858) 209-6941
Email: jnelson@milberg.com
KARYN MANNIX: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Karyn Mannix
Contemporary Inc. The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf
of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Karyn Mannix
Contemporary Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08660 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Karyn Mannix Contemporary --
https://www.karynmannixcontemporary.com/ -- is a contemporary and
secondary market art gallery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
KATE ASPEN INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kate Aspen, Inc. The
case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Kate Aspen, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08695
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kate Aspen -- https://www.kateaspen.com/ -- is one of the leading
designers of wedding favors, bridal shower favors, baby shower
favors, christening favors, birthday party favors, decorations, and
more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
KAY WATERPROOFING: Does Not Pay Workers Proper Wages, Cabrera Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
HELBERTH CABRERA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class, Plaintiff v. KAY WATERPROOFING CORP., d/b/a KR&R,
KAY WATERPROOFING & RESTORATION LLC, d/b/a KR&R, and BARRY GRUMMER,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-08730 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022) seeks
to recover from Defendants unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a scaffolding
laborer for Defendants' KR&R entity in New York from October 2019
until his termination in March 2021.
Kay Waterproofing Corp. and Kay Waterproofing & Restoration LLC own
and operate two building and waterproofing restoring companies at
the same location in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
KIA AMERICA: Burnett Files Suit in N.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kia America, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Brandye Burnett, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc.,
Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00295-PPS-JPK (N.D.
Ind., Oct. 12, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability for
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Kia America, Inc. -- http://www.kiamedia.com/-- provides a wide
range of cars that meet your lifestyle. Browse our luxury or sports
sedans, hybrids, electric cars, SUVs & hatchbacks.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert T. Dassow, Esq.
HOVDE DASSOW & DEETS LLC
10201 N Illinois St Ste 500
Indianapolis, IN 46290
Phone: (317) 818-3100
Fax: (317) 818-3111
Email: rdassow@hovdelaw.com
KINGLINE NUTRITION: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kingline Nutrition,
LLC. The case is styled as Joyce Carrico, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Kingline Nutrition, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-08677-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kingline Nutrition -- https://www.kinglinenutrition.com/ -- offers
edible cookie dough.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Solomon Nematzadeh, Esq.
NEMATZADEH PLLC
101 Avenue of the Americas, Ste. 9th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Phone: (646) 417-8424
Email: jsn@nematlawyers.com
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Scheduling Order Entered in Hobbs Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAVARES HOBBS, RICARDO
BELL, and ROBERT SHAW, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION HOLDINGS, INC.,
and SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-01421-JLR-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Court entered a joint
schedule order for remaining briefing on class certification and
manager depositions as follows:
-- The Defendants to file Opposition December 6, 2022
to Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification:
-- The Plaintiffs to file Opposition December 6, 2022
to Defendants' Motion to Deny
Class Certification:
-- The Plaintiffs to file Reply in January 13, 2023
support of Motion for Class
Certification:
-- The Defendants to file Reply January 13, 2023
in support of Motion to Deny
Class Certification:
Knight-Swift is a publicly traded, American motor carrier holding
company based in Phoenix, Arizona.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yLWznK at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Nestico, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
KONECKY LLP
6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1200
Charlotte, NC 28210
Telephone: (510) 740-2946
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Joshua Konecky, Esq.
Nathan Piller, Esq.
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
npiller@schneiderwallace.com
The Defendants are represented by
Brian Murphy, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER &
HAMPTON LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112-0015
Telephone: (212) 653-8700
E-mail: bmurphy@smrh.com
KNOWBE4 INC: Juan Monteverde Probes Possible Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
KnowBe4, Inc. (KNBE), relating to its proposed acquisition by Vista
Equity Partners. Under the terms of the agreement, KNBE
shareholders are expected to receive $24.90 in cash per share they
own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/knowbe4-inc. It is free
About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as a Rising Star
and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities Litigation. He has also
been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated
Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a
significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under
Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter,
our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal
of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United
States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407
(2019). Also, we have recovered or secured over a dozen cash common
funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action
cases. [GN]
KOLD TRANS: Stipulation to Continue Class Certification OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENNIE HAMILTON on behalf
of himself and all similarly situated persons, and the general
public, v. KOLD TRANS, LLC; KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC. dba Arizona
Knight Transportation Inc.; KNIGHT REFRIGERATED, LLC; and KNIGHT
PORT, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
5:21-cv-01859-MEMF-SP (CD. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah
Frimpong entered an order that the class certification briefing
schedule and hearing date shall be modified as follows:
Filing Deadline
-- Plaintiff's Class Certification February 17, 2023
Motion):
-- The Defendants' Opposition to May 2, 2023
Class Certification:
-- The Plaintiff's Reply June 2, 2023
-- Hearing on Class Certification June 22, 2023
Motion:
Kold Trans is a premier provider of truckload and logistics
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W15k7J at no extra charge.[CC]
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Gibbons Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Bert Gibbons, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips
North America LLC, Philips Holding USA INC., Philips RS North
America LLC, Philips Rs North America Holding Corporation, Case No.
3014, was transferred from the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on Oct. 13, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01442-JFC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. -- https://www.philips.com/global -- is a
Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation that was founded in
Eindhoven in 1891.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
707 Grant Street, Suite 125
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 281-7229
Fax: (412) 281-4229
Email: arihn@peircelaw.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Krantz Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Matthew Krantz, Jimy Ruiz, Donald Boyd, Rudolph
Childre, Jr., John Couch, Marc Whaley, Ronald Turner, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips
N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips Holding USA INC., Philips
RS North America LLC, Philips Rs North America Holding Corporation,
Case No. MDL 3014, was transferred from the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 13, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01443-JFC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. -- https://www.philips.com/global -- is a
Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation that was founded in
Eindhoven in 1891.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
707 Grant Street, Suite 125
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 281-7229
Fax: (412) 281-4229
Email: arihn@peircelaw.com
LAWRENCE FINE ART: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lawrence Fine Art &
Antiques, LLC. The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Lawrence Fine
Art & Antiques, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08662 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lawrence Fine Art & Antiques -- https://www.lawrence-fine-arts.com/
-- is a high-end transportation, crating, storage and installation
company for art and antiques.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
LEGRAND NORTH AMERICA: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LeGrand North
America, LLC. The case is styled as Joyce Carrico, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. LeGrand North America,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08657-JLR (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Legrand -- https://www.legrand.us/ -- provides electrical
contracting services and offers innovative products and solutions
for the places that people work and live delivering and managing
power, light and data.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Solomon Nematzadeh, Esq.
NEMATZADEH PLLC
101 Avenue of the Americas, Ste. 9th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Phone: (646) 417-8424
Email: jsn@nematlawyers.com
LJUBLJANA INTER: Court Issues Agreed Protective Order in Klein Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Western Division, enters a
Stipulated Protective Order in the case, ALLISON KLEIN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. Ljubljana Inter Auto d.o.o., a Slovenian Corporation,
Dr. Ing. h.c.F. PORSCHE AG, a German corporation, and PORSCHE CARS
NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-10079-DMG-JPR (C.D. Cal.).
The Plaintiff's First Amended Nationwide Class Action Complaint
alleges that all Porsche Macan vehicles sold or leased in the
United States since 2014 are defective due to engine oil leaks and
issues with the front upper control arm bushings in the suspension.
The Plaintiff alleges the defects will manifest in all purported
class vehicles and present numerous safety hazards. She also claims
the defects affect the fuel economy, horsepower, and torque of the
Macan as advertised. She and the putative class are claimed to have
suffered damages associated with repair costs, loss of use of their
vehicles and diminution in value.
Certain claims for breach of express and implied warranties,
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, affirmative and
negligent misrepresentation, violation of the California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, and unjust
enrichment remain following the Defendants' motions to dismiss.
Discovery is likely to involve production of confidential,
proprietary, or private information for which special protection
from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than
prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the
Parties stipulate to and petition the Court to enter their
Stipulated Protective Order.
The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not
only Protected Material but also any information copied or
extracted from Protected Material; all copies, excerpts, summaries,
or compilations of Protected Material regardless of form; and any
testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their
Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected
Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial
judge. The Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at
trial.
Even after final disposition of the litigation, the confidentiality
obligations imposed by the Order will remain in effect until a
Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order
otherwise directs. Final disposition is the later of (1) dismissal
of all claims and defenses in the Action, with or without
prejudice, or (2) final judgment after the completion and
exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews
of the Action, including the time limits for filing any motions or
applications for extension of time under applicable law.
Any Party or Nonparty may challenge a designation of
confidentiality at any time consistent with the Court's scheduling
order.
By stipulating to the entry of the Order, no Party waives any right
it otherwise would have to object to disclosing or producing any
information or item on any ground not addressed in the Order.
Similarly, no Party waives any right to object on any ground to use
in evidence of any of the material covered by the Order.
After the final disposition of the Action, within 60 days of a
written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must
return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy
such material.
Any willful violation of the Order may be punished by civil or
criminal contempt, financial or evidentiary sanctions, reference to
disciplinary authorities, or other appropriate action at the
discretion of the Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 19, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p9barjx from Leagle.com.
LEE, HONG, DEGERMAN, KANG & WAIMEY, Anika P. Brunson --
anika.brunson@lhlaw.com -- Soo A. Hong -- sooh@lhlaw.com --
Attorneys for Defendant Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
DLA PIPER LLP (US), Christopher M. Young --
christopher.young@dlapiper.com -- Matthew A. Goldberg --
matthew.goldberg@dlapiper.com -- (pro hac vice) Timothy P.
Pfenninger -- timothy.pfenninger@dlapiper.com -- (pro hac vice),
Attorneys for Defendant Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG
THE X-LAW GROUP, P.C., Filippo Marchino -- FM@XLAWX.com -- Carlos
X. Colorado -- CC@XLAWX.com -- Thomas E. Gray -- TG@XLAWX.com --
Attorneys for Plaintiff Allison Klein.
LOONEY LABORATORIES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Looney Laboratories,
Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Looney Laboratories, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-08646 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Looney Labs, Inc. -- https://www.looneylabs.com/ -- is a small game
company based in College Park, Maryland.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
LOVEBUG NUTRITION: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lovebug Nutrition,
Inc. The case is styled as Joyce Carrico, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Lovebug Nutrition, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08678-JMF-OTW (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
LoveBug Probiotics -- https://lovebugprobiotics.com/ -- has created
an award-winning line of probiotic supplements for the whole
family.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Solomon Nematzadeh, Esq.
NEMATZADEH PLLC
101 Avenue of the Americas, Ste. 9th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Phone: (646) 417-8424
Email: jsn@nematlawyers.com
MAINSTAGE MGMT: Wins in Part Summary Judgment Bid in Layton Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BROOKE LAYTON, et al., Plaintiffs v. MAINSTAGE
MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
3:21-CV-1636-N (N.D. Tex.), Judge David C. Godbey of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division,
grants in part Mainstage's motion for summary judgment.
The Order addresses Mainstage Management, Inc., Nick's Mainstage,
Inc. -- Dallas PT's d/b/a PT Men's Club, and Nick Mehmeti's
(collectively "Mainstage") threshold motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs Brooke Layton and Ashlynn Shipley, exotic dancers at a
Dallas-area adult entertainment establishment, instituted this
putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FSLA"). Both Plaintiffs entered into License and Lease Agreements
with Mainstage's club. Between them, the Plaintiffs worked at the
club from 2018 until 2020, during which time they allege Mainstage
paid them below the federal minimum wage. They claim that Mainstage
misclassified them as independent contractors and then grossly
underpaid them.
The Plaintiffs initiated the case as a collective action purporting
to represent a class of similarly situated Mainstage employees.
Mainstage then filed a motion to dismiss, partially based on a
contractual defense. The Court could not consider the Licensing
Agreement Mainstage sought to enforce but granted leave for
Mainstage to file an additional threshold motion for summary
judgment.
Mainstage now moves for summary judgment, arguing that (1) failure
to comply with a notice provision in the Licensing Agreement bars
Plaintiffs' claims, and (2) Plaintiffs waived their right to bring
a collective action.
Judge Godbey concludes that the notice provision in the Licensing
Agreement does not bar the Plaintiffs' claims because it is merely
a covenant. However, because Mainstage has established a valid
collective action waiver, he grants the motion for summary judgment
regarding the Plaintiffs' collective action claims. The Plaintiffs'
individual claims may proceed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrxsta8f from
Leagle.com.
MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING: Scheduling Order Entered in Hinton Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shirley Hinton v.
Management and Training Corporation, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-03936-SSS-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes
entered a scheduling order regarding the parties' joint 26(f)
report and proposed deadlines for class certification motion and
hearing as follows:
Event Deadline
-- Deadline to Complete Class March 31, 2023
Certification Discovery:
-- Deadline to File Motion for April 21, 2023
Class Certification:
-- Deadline to File Opposition May 19, 2023
to Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Deadline to File Reply to June 2, 2023
Motion for Class Certification:
-- Class Certification Hearing: June 16, 2023
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CLvvX7 at no extra charge.[CC]
MATTERPORT INC: Stemmelin Loses Bid to Modify Scheduling Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN STEMMELIN v.
MATTERPORT, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-04168-WHA (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order denying Plaintiff's
motion to modify scheduling order and vacating hearing.
The Court says, "The Plaintiff has failed to meet this standard. He
primarily stresses that it was not appropriate 6 to move for
summary judgment prior to a decision on class certification. The
class certification motion was denied on March 14, 2022, more than
three months before the dispositive motion deadline. By design,
this gave plaintiff more than enough time to prepare a summary
judgment motion. Indeed, plaintiff did not even raise this motion
until more than two months after the deadline passed. At no point
during the interim did plaintiff raise the 11 issue of needing more
time. In short, plaintiff has not been diligent. The withdrawal of
plaintiff's co-counsel has no bearing on these issues. Nor does
permitting summary judgment now serve judicial economy. The motion
is denied. The hearing is vacated."
In this false and deceptive advertising action, plaintiff seeks to
modify the scheduling order to file a motion for partial summary
judgment.
Matterport is a developer of a 3D media platform used to establish
3D and virtual reality models. Sunnyvale, California, United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CQ9J4h at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2670: Partial Summary Judgment Issued in Seafood Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
Case No. 3:15-MD-02670-DMS-MDD (S.D. Cal.), Judge Dana M. Sabraw of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
grants in part and denies in part the Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment on Certain State Law Claims.
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: (1) End Payer Plaintiffs (2) Commercial
Food Preparer Plaintiffs (3) W. Lee Flowers & Co., Inc. v. Bumble
Bee Foods LLC, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01226 (4) Associated
Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-02212 (5) Affiliated Foods, Inc., et al. v. Tri-Union
Seafoods, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02787.
The Motion was filed by Defendants StarKist Co., Dongwon Industries
Co., Ltd., Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC d/b/a
Chicken of the Sea International ("COSI"), Thai Union Group PCL,
Del Monte Corp., Lion Capital (Americas), Inc., Lion Capital LLP,
and Big Catch Cayman LP.
Numerous civil actions have been filed against COSI, Bumble Bee,
StarKist, and their executives, alleging conspiracy to fix and
maintain supracompetitive pricing for packaged tuna in violation of
state and federal antitrust laws. The first such action was filed
on Aug. 3, 2015 -- Olean Wholesale Groc. Coop., Inc. v. Bumble Bee
Foods, LLC, No. 15cv1714 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2015). These actions
were consolidated in a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") for
pretrial proceedings before the Court.
The Court divided the Plaintiffs into four tracks: (1) Direct
Action Plaintiffs ("DAPs"), who are direct purchasers proceeding
individually; (2) Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, who are proceeding
on behalf of a putative class; (3) Commercial Food Preparer
Plaintiffs ("CFPs"), who are indirect purchasers proceeding on
behalf of a putative class; and (4) End Payer Plaintiffs ("EPPs"),
who are consumers proceeding on behalf of a putative class.
Presently before the Court is the Defendants Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment. The Plaintiffs, EPPs, CFPs, DAPs, Associated
Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("AWG"), and W. Lee Flowers & Co., jointly
filed a Memorandum in Opposition.
The Defendants first argue South Carolina's consumer protection
statute expressly bars class action claims and therefore EPP and
CFP classes fail as a matter of law. According to them, both the
plain text of the Rules Enabling Act and the Supreme Court's
decision in Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins.
Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010), dictate that Rule 23 cannot supply EPPs
and CFPs with a cause of action that the South Carolina legislature
expressly precluded.
While this Court previously considered whether SCUPTA's prohibition
against "representative" claims precludes the pursuit of those
claims under Rule 23, the Defendants assert the Court did so prior
to class certification and "in the context of limited briefing."
They thus request that the Court reconsiders.
Judge Sabraw holds that the Court's prior Order now has more,
rather than less, support in the controlling case law. An argument
for reconsideration based on an intervening change in law or error
in the prior decision as to Shady Grove is therefore unavailing.
The Defendants have not met the high bar for reconsideration of the
Court's prior order and their motion as to SCUPTA is thus denied.
The Defendants then argue that CFPs' and EPPs' South Carolina
claims for unjust enrichment fail as a matter of law because South
Carolina bars indirect purchaser recovery in class actions. Judge
Sabraw finds that their motion and reply fail to cite any authority
or present any argument in support of their assertion, and the
Court has previously upheld these claims. Because the Defendants'
argument is conclusory, she finds summary judgment inappropriate as
to the EPPs' and CFPs' South Carolina unjust enrichment claims.
The Defendants next assert that the CFPs' and EPPs' inclusion of
South Carolina claimants under California's Cartwright Act fails as
a matter of law because South Carolina bars representative suits,
presenting a material conflict of law under Ninth Circuit
precedent. They seek to extinguish these multistate classes, while
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to excise South Carolina claimants.
Judge Sabraw holds that allowing a nationwide class based on
California antitrust law would allow claimants from South Carolina,
which abides by federal precedent, to make claims where their state
government has disallowed it. She also holds that South Carolina
has an interest in delineating the reach and scope of recovery for
indirect purchasers, and its choice to follow federal precedent
evinces a policy judgment that should not be cast aside. Further,
she holds that the inclusion of South Carolina claimants in CFPs'
and EPPs' California Cartwright claim fails as a matter of law.
Notwithstanding Defendants' prevailing arguments, she finds the
Defendants' suggested remedy -- the extinguishment of CFPs' and
EPPs' multistate class brought under the California Cartwright Act
-- a disproportionately harsh remedy. It is more appropriate to
maintain the class and excise the South Carolina claimants.
The Defendants further assert that DAP Flowers' claim pursuant to
the South Carolina antitrust statute fails as a matter of law
because the statute applies to conduct affecting only intrastate
commerce and provides no relief or remedy for the interstate
commerce at issue. Judge Sabraw rules that it is uncontested that
the Defendants here are engaged in interstate commerce and that the
products whose prices are at issue were manufactured outside South
Carolina and shipped there for sale. As South Carolina has limited
the application of its state antitrust statutes to intrastate
commerce, the SCAA does not apply. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs'
SCAA claim fails.
Finally, the Defendants argue that DAPs Affiliated Foods Midwest
Cooperative ("AFMC") and AWG, respectively, are not entitled to
prejudgment interest. Judge Sabraw denies as moot the Defendants'
request for summary judgment as to prejudgment interest under
Kansas law, as AFMC has not stated a claim under Kansas law. And,
as the trial court has discretion to award prejudgment interest
even when the damages are unliquidated and that decision is
appropriate for post-trial consideration, she denies the
Defendants' request for summary judgment as to prejudgment
interest.
Accordingly, Judge Sabraw grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment. She denies the Defendants'
motion as to the EPPs' and CFPs' SCUPTA claim and South Carolina
unjust enrichment claims. She grants Defendants' motion as to the
CFPs' and EPPs' multistate Cartwright Act class, such that South
Carolina claimants are excised from that class. She also grants the
Defendants' motion as to DAP Flowers' SCAA claim. She denies the
Defendants' motion as to prejudgment interest for DAPs AFMC and
AWG.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 19, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8bpfy6 from Leagle.com.
MEDICAL SECURITY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss SASB Class Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SASB CORPORATION, individually and as the
representative of a class of a similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. MEDICAL SECURITY CARD COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 22-14206-CIV-CANNON/McCabe (S.D. Fla.), Judge Aileen M. Cannon
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
Fort Pierce Division, denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint.
The cause comes before the Court upon the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss. The Motion to Dismiss was referred to Magistrate Judge
Ryon M. McCabe for a report and recommendation. On Sept. 16, 2022,
Judge McCabe issued a report recommending that the Defendant's
Motion be denied. The Defendant filed Objections to the Report, and
the Plaintiff filed a Response to the Defendant's Objections.
Judge Cannon has conducted a de novo review of the Report, the
Defendant's Objections, the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendant's
Objections, and the full record in the case. Upon review of the
foregoing materials, including the authority and analysis provided
in the Defendant's Objections, she finds Judge McCabe's Report to
be well-reasoned and correct. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is
therefore denied for the reasons set forth in the Report.
Accordingly, the Report is accepted. Judge Cannon denies the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Defendant will file an Answer to
the Plaintiff's Complaint by Nov. 1, 2022.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycxkn5jf from Leagle.com
MESA PACKING: Cy Pres Recipient Given $66K in Miguel-Sanchez Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM MIGUEL-SANCHEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. MESA
PACKING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00823-VKD (N.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, orders
that the net amount of $65,994.50 be paid to the parties' cy pres
recipient, Salud Para La Gente, in Watsonville, California.
Following final approval of the class action settlement, the Court
extended the class payment period to permit the Settlement
Administrator to conduct additional searches and effectuate payment
to any unpaid class members who could be located.
On Oct. 14, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended final payment
report stating that an additional 17 class members were located and
paid. They further report that $65,994.50 now remains of the
settlement fund for distribution to the previously approved cy pres
recipient, Salud. They request that the Court orders payment of the
remaining funds to the cy pres recipient. In the alternative, they
propose distribution of the remaining funds on a pro rata basis.
Preliminarily, Judge DeMarchi holds that if the Court were to
distribute the remaining funds pro rata to the 548 class members
who were successfully paid, the distributions would be minimal.
Plaintiffs report that the average additional payment would be less
than $120, with a quarter of the payments less than $15. The
Plaintiffs report that an additional distribution would also incur
further administration costs. Because any further distribution
would be minimal relative to the payments already made to class
members, Judge DeMarchi finds that distribution to the cy pres
beneficiary is appropriate.
The designated cy pres recipient, Salud, provides healthcare
services in California's Pajaro Valley, without regard to whether a
patient is able to pay for those services. It has 10 clinic sites
and nearly 30,000 patients. Approximately 75% of Salud's patients
do not speak English.
Judge DeMarchi finds that the cy pres recipient has an indirect
connection to the objectives of the underlying statutes at issue in
this case. The Plaintiffs brought claims pursuant to the California
Labor Code; the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers
Protection Act ("AWPA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1801 et seq.; and
California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Sections 17200 et seq. While Salud does not directly work on issues
of housing or transportation, it appears to serve the same
community the AWPA seeks to protect. Therefore, there is a
sufficient connection between the cy pres recipient and the
objectives of the underlying statutes at issue.
Salud also "serves the interests of the silent class members." As
noted, it provides healthcare services for individuals living in
California's Pajaro Valley, where many individuals in the class
work. Its history further demonstrates that they serve the
interests of the settlement class: "Salud was founded in 1978."
Finally, Judge DeMarchi notes that there were no objectors to the
parties' settlement agreement throughout the process.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge DeMarchi orders that the net
amount of $65,994.50 be paid to the parties' cy pres recipient,
Salud Para La Gente in Watsonville, California.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/47vf4xcz from Leagle.com.
MINISO GROUP: Ashraf's Securities Suit in Preliminary Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------
MINISO Group Holding Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 19, 2022, that the Company and
certain of its current officers and directors have been named as
defendants in a putative securities class action captioned Adeel
Ashraf v. MINISO Group Holding Limited et al. (Case No.
2:22-cv-05815) filed on August 17, 2022, in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.
The complaint alleges, in sum and substance, that the Company's
registration and prospectus ("Offering Documents") were false or
misleading, in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, in that the Offering Documents allegedly
misrepresented the Company's franchisee business model and failed
to disclose that the IPO proceeds were diverted for improper
purposes and that the Company's business was in decline.
Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of a class of
similarly situated investors and seek monetary damages on behalf of
the class.
This action is currently in its preliminary stage and the Company
is unable to predict with certainty the outcome of the action and
estimate the potential losses, if any.
MINISO Group Holding Ltd is a China-based holding company mainly
engaged in the retail and wholesale business of lifestyle and pop
toy products.
MONARCH RECOVERY: Mullins Suit Remanded to Caldwell Super. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kenneth D. Bell of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Statesville Division, remanded the
case, NICKIE MULLINS, Plaintiff v. MONARCH RECOVERY MANAGEMENT,
INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:21-CV-00120-KDB-DSC
(W.D.N.C.), to North Carolina's Caldwell County Superior Court.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the federal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. (the
"FDCPA"), the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, N.C.G.S. Section
75-50, et seq. (the "NCDCA"), the North Carolina Collection Agency
Act, N.C.G.S. Section 58-70, et seq., and the North Carolina Unfair
and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C.G.S. Section 75-1.1, et seq.
when it used a third-party mail vendor to prepare and mail three
debt collection letters to her between June and October 2020.
The Plaintiff initially filed her putative class action in North
Carolina's Caldwell County Superior Court, and the Defendant timely
removed the case to this Court under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and
1441(b) based on the alleged federal statutory violation. However,
the notice of removal does not discuss or state any facts
establishing that the parties have met the Court's Article III
standing requirements. Indeed, the Plaintiff moved to remand this
action to state court on March 8, 2022, on the grounds of lack of
standing, but then withdrew that motion.
Having now carefully reviewed all seven recent decisions on the
question of the Plaintiff's standing to assert her lone Federal
FDCPA claim, Judge Bell remains persuaded that the Plaintiff has
not sufficiently alleged standing based on a "concrete injury." In
the absence of any alternative basis for federal jurisdiction, the
case must be remanded to the appropriate North Carolina state
court.
Ms. Mullins alleges that the letter-mailing vendor "populated" her
private information "into a prewritten template," "printed" the
letters, and "mailed" them to her. However, the Amended Complaint
does not allege that the information forwarded to the third-party
vendor was actually "read" by any person, that the Plaintiff was
aware that the collection letters she received were prepared by
someone other than an employee of the Defendant or that she
suffered any harm as a consequence of the use of the third-party
vendor beyond the alleged statutory FDCPA violation.
Judge Bell holds that Mullins has failed to sufficiently allege
that her private information was publicized in any actual,
meaningful sense. Thus, she has not plead a claim sufficiently
similar to the tort of "invasion of privacy" resulting from public
disclosure.
Because the Plaintiff does not allege that anyone read her private
information nor any other allegations sufficient to plead the harm
that an "invasion of privacy" claim based on public disclosure
intends to remedy, she cannot maintain standing based on her
assertion that her FDCPA claim is "closely related" to such a
claim.
Therefore, in sum, the Plaintiff merely alleges a "bare procedural
violation, divorced from any concrete harm." She thus lacks Article
III standing to assert her FDCPA claim. There are no other valid
grounds for the Court to assume jurisdiction and Judge Bell
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's
state-law claims. Accordingly, he remands the case to North
Carolina's Caldwell County Superior Court.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
The Clerk is directed to close the matter in this Court in
accordance with the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5zxjthkc from Leagle.com.
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Wallenstein Sues Over False Labeling
------------------------------------------------------------
David Wallenstein, Montgomery Summa, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
Virginia corporation, MONDELEZ GLOBAL, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, AND NABISCO, INC., a New Jersey corporation,
Case No. 3:22-cv-06033 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 13, 2022), is brought
concerning MDLZ's representation that Wheat Thins crackers are
"100% WHOLE GRAIN", meaning that all (or 100%) of the grain
ingredients in Wheat Thins are whole grain ingredients when they
aren't.
One of the primary grain ingredients in Wheat Thins products is
cornstarch, which is a refined grain. By definition, refined grains
are not and cannot be whole grains. Thus, MDLZ's representation
that all (or 100%) of the grain ingredients in Wheat Thins products
are "whole grain" is patently false and utterly misleading. The
representation that Wheat Thins crackers are "100% Whole Grain" is
a pillar of the Wheat Thins brand. The representation is
prominently displayed on the front, side and back panel of Wheat
Thins packages in large, bold, colorful font. The representation
that Wheat Thins are "100% Whole Grain" crackers is uniform across
MDLZ's marketing and labeling for the Wheat Thins product line.
"100% WHOLE GRAIN" is a key differentiator that gives MDLZ a unique
position in the cracker and snack product market. This
representation increases sales and induces consumers to purchase
Wheat Thins and pay more than they otherwise would for the
products.
The Plaintiffs relied on the misrepresentation alleged herein in
making their decision to purchase Wheat Thins and they would not
have purchased Wheat Thins if they had known they were not "100%
WHOLE GRAIN." The Plaintiffs were injured in fact and lost money as
a result of MDLZ's improper conduct. Alternatively, each of the
Plaintiffs would not have paid as much as they did for Wheat Thins
if they had known they were not "100% WHOLE GRAIN." The Plaintiffs
were injured in fact and lost money as a result of MDLZ's improper
conduct, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased various flavors of Wheat Thins.
Mondelez International, Inc. markets and sells Wheat Thins
throughout the United States, including sales in California and New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dave Fox, Esq.
Joanna Fox, Esq.
Courtney Vasquez, Esq.
FOX LAW, APC
225 W. Plaza Street, Suite 102
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Phone: 858-256-7616
Fax: 858-256-7618
Email: Dave@FoxLawAPC.com
Joanna@FoxLawAPC.com
Courtney@FoxLawAPC.com
MSK RESTAURANT: Borja Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
JESUS BORJA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
the Class, Plaintiff v. MSK RESTAURANT CORP d/b/a YANGSANDO, and
KEUM SOON PARK, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06178 (E.D.N.Y., Oct.
13, 2022) seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid wages, including
overtime, due to a fixed salary; unpaid wages, including overtime,
due to time shaving; illegally retained gratuities; unpaid spread
of hours premium; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as busboy at
YangSanDo Sushi & Roll restaurant from August 2020 until his
termination in October 2021.
MSK Restaurant Corp. owns and operates Yangsando Sushi & Roll
restaurant located in Flushing, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: Buelvas Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Recovery
Systems, Ltd. The case is styled as Paul Buelvas, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NRS doing business
as: Nationwide Recovery Systems, LTD., Case No. 6:22-cv-00400 (E.D.
Tex., Oct. 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
NRS doing business as Nationwide Recovery Systems, LTD. --
https://www.nationwiderecoverysystems.com/ -- is a nationally
recognized Accounts Receivable Management Company providing
services to the Healthcare, Commercial, and Consumer
industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: Nov. 10 Deadline to File Class Status Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Villafan, et al., v.
Northwest Motorsport, LLC et al., Case No. (), the Parties
stipulate and jointly request relief regarding the deadline for
filing motions related to class certification:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
-- Deadline for filing Oct. 20, 2022 Nov. 10, 2022
motions related
to class certification
The Plaintiffs include SETH VILLAFAN, a single man; WOLFGANG OLSON,
a single man; and JOSH GRAVES, a married but separated man.
The Defendants include NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT, LLC, a Washington
limited liability company; HILT VENTURE CAP INC., a Washington
limited liability company; DONALD FLEMING and JANE DOE FLEMING,
residents of Montana, and the marital community composed thereof;
NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT, INC., a Washington corporation; RICHARD FORD
and JANE DOE FORD, residents of Texas, and the marital community
composed thereof; RFJ AUTO PARTNERS NORTHERN HOLDINGS, INC., a
Delaware corporation; JOHN and JANE DOES 1-5 and the marital
communities; and RFJ AUTO GROUP, INC., a foreign corporation.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CVLUYR at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eugene N. Bolin, Jr.,Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE N. BOLIN, JR., PS
Eugene N. Bolin, Jr., WSBA #11450
144 Railroad Ave., Suite #308
Edmonds, WA 98020
Telephone: (425) 582-8165
Facsimile: (888) 527-2710
E-mail: eugenebolin@gmail.com
The Defendants are represented by
Paul S. Smith, Esq.
Martin J. Pujolar, Esq.
901 Fifth Ave., Suite 1400
Seattle, WA 98164
Telephone: 206-689-8500
Facsimile: 206-689-8501
E-mail: mpujolar@foum.law
psmith@foum.law
NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL: Krackenberger Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL KRACKENBERGER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHWESTERN
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, META PLATFORMS, INC., FACEBOOK HOLDINGS, LLC,
FACEBOOK OPERATIONS, LLC, and INSTAGRAM, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-04203, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Oct. 13, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-06020-WHO to the proceeding.
This class action arises from the Defendants' alleged use of Meta
Pixel to unlawfully collect the private medical information of
Northwestern Memorial Hospital's patients and to use that data for
their own profit.
Northwestern Memorial Hospital is an academic medical center
located on Northwestern University's Chicago campus in
Streeterville, Chicago, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
Gayle Meryl Blatt, Esq.
CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT AND PENFIELD LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1811
Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
gmb@cglaw.com
- and -
Rusty A. Payton, Esq.
PAYTON LEGAL GROUP LLC
20 N Clark Street, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (773) 682-5210
E-mail: info@payton.legal
- and -
Nick Heath Wooten, Esq.
DC LAW, PLLC
1012 West Anderson Lane
Austin, TX 78757
Telephone: (512) 220-1800
Facsimile: (512) 220-1801
E-mail: nick@texasjustice.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David A. Carney, Esq.
BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
127 Public Square, Suite 2000 Key Tower
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 861-7634
Facsimile: (216) 696-0740
E-mail: dcarney@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq.
Joshua Michael Fliegel, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1 N. Wacker Dr. Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 416-6200
E-mail: bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com
jfliegel@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Abigail A. Barrera, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
E-mail: abarrera@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Caroline A. Lebel, Esq.
Kyle C. Wong, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
3 Embarcadero Center 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 693-2000
E-mail: clebel@cooley.com
kwong@cooley.com
- and -
Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
101 California Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
Telephone: (415) 693-2000
Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com
- and -
Elizabeth Katharine McCloskey, Esq.
KEKER VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone: (415) 391-5400
Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
E-mail: emccloskey@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Lauren R Goldman, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-0193
Telephone: (212) 351-4000
E-mail: LGoldman@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Matthew Lawrence Kutcher, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
110 N. Wacker Drive Suite 4200
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 881-6500
E-mail: mkutcher@cooley.com
- and -
Trenton Van Oss, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5306
Telephone: (202) 887-3716
E-mail: TVanOss@gibsondunn.com
NYC VELO: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NYC Velo, Inc. The
case is styled as Miriam Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. NYC Velo, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06137-NGG-PK
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
NYCVelo -- https://www.nycvelo.com/ -- offers a collection of
bikes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
NYGG ASIA: Bid for Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement Due Feb. 3
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH PUDDU, MARK GHITIS, VALERY BURLAK, and ADAM
BUTTER, Plaintiffs v. NYGG (ASIA), LTD. and BENJAMIN TIANBING WEI
a/k/a/ BENJAMIN WEY, Defendants, Case No. 15cv8061 (DLC)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York orders the parties to move for
preliminary approval of their class action settlement agreement no
later than Feb. 3, 2023, and will not be extended.
Judge Cote notes that it has been reported to the Court that the
parties have reached a settlement.
The Plaintiff's Oct. 6, 2022 motion for sanctions is denied as
moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/u9fu5d9a from Leagle.com.
ORTHOFIX MEDICAL: Juan Monteverde Probes Possible Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
Orthofix Medical Inc. (OFIX), relating to its proposed acquisition
by SeaSpine Holdings Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, OFIX
shareholders are expected to receive 0.4163 shares of SeaSpine per
share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/orthofix-medical-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as a Rising Star
and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities Litigation. He has also
been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated
Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a
significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under
Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter,
our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal
of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United
States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407
(2019). Also, we have recovered or secured over a dozen cash common
funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action
cases. [GN]
ORVIS CO: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Amended Farris Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN FARRIS, LANCE GROFF, and TOM THEUS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE
ORVIS COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00007 (D. Vt.),
Judge Christine Reiss of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Vermont grants Orvis' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiffs bring this purported class action against Orvis or
selling and renting its mailing lists, which included their names
and other information, to third parties. They allege this violates
their statutory rights under California, Illinois, and Ohio law.
Mr. Farris is a resident of California, Mr. Groff is a resident of
Illinois, and Mr. Theus is a resident of Ohio. Orvis is a Vermont
corporation which sells sporting goods. Each named Plaintiff
purchased products from Orvis while they were "residing in" and
"physically present" in their home state.
Orvis allegedly collects the Plaintiffs' and all other customers'
names and addresses, as well as age, gender, income, ethnicity,
religion, children's age, and information pertaining to their
purchase of products from Orvis. It compiles this information and
rents or sells the resulting "mailing lists," directly or through
intermediaries, on the open market.
The Plaintiffs assert Orvis does not obtain consent or provide
"effective" notice before selling or otherwise distributing the
mailing lists which they contend is a practice which put customers
at risk of serious harm from scammers. They contend that, in
distributing the mailing lists, Orvis has used their names, which
allegedly have commercial value, on or in, or in connection with
products, merchandise, goods, or services, or the sale or rental of
such things.
The Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of three distinct classes,
each consisting of "all state residents who, at any point in the
relevant statutory period, had their names appear on or in a
mailing list sold or rented, or offered for sale or rental, by
Orvis." Mr. Farris seeks to represent California residents, Mr.
Groff seeks to represent Illinois residents, and Mr. Theus seeks to
represent Ohio residents. For each class, the Plaintiffs allege the
crux of their claims is a misappropriation of their names as an
aspect of their identity.
The Amended Complaint sets forth three causes of action. In Count
I, Mr. Farris, individually and on behalf of the California Class,
asserts a claim for a violation of Cal. Civ. Code Section 3344,
alleging Orvis knowingly used and continues to 'use' his and the
other California Class members' names and likenesses, which
allegedly have significant commercial value, on or in such mailing
lists. The Plaintiffs allege this use is not authorized or
privileged.
The Plaintiffs allege Mr. Farris and the California Class members
"have been injured, in California" by Orvis' actions and seek (1)
$750 in statutory liquidated damages or actual damages, whichever
is greater, as well as any profits from Orvis' unauthorized uses;
(2) punitive damages; (3) declaratory relief; (4) injunctive relief
prohibiting further use and requiring Orvis to obtain prior consent
in the future; and (5) costs and attorney's fees.
In Count II, Mr. Groff, individually and on behalf of the Illinois
Class, asserts Orvis violated 765 Ill. Comp. Stat. 1075/30(a) by
selling, or offering to sell, mailing lists with its Illinois
customers' names and other information. Plaintiffs allege this use
is not authorized or privileged. For violations of their rights of
publicity, the Plaintiffs seek (1) an injunction requiring Orvis to
seek prior written consent from Illinois customers; (2) $1,000 in
statutory liquidated damages for Mr. Groff and each Illinois Class
member; and (3) costs and attorney's fees.
In Count III, Mr. Theus, individually and on behalf of the Ohio
Class, alleges Orvis violated Ohio Rev. Code Section 2471.02 by
using Ohio customers' names and other information, which have
significant commercial value, on or in connection with the mailing
lists that it sells and rents. The Plaintiffs seek (1) statutory
liquidated damages between $2,500 and $10,000 per violation for Mr.
Theus and each Ohio Class member; (2) punitive damages; (3) an
injunction requiring Orvis to seek prior written consent from Ohio
customers; and (4) costs and attorney's fees.
On Jan. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint and
on Feb. 24, 2022 filed an Amended Complaint. Pursuant to a
stipulated schedule, Orvis moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint
on April 11, 2022. On May 26, 2022, the Plaintiffs opposed Orvis'
motion, and Orvis replied on June 27, 2022. After a hearing on July
11, 2022, the Court took the pending motion under advisement.
Orvis argues that the Plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed because
their names and information are not publicly associated with the
mailing lists as no one would know their names were included in the
lists unless one purchased a list. The Plaintiffs respond that
their claims fall within the plain language of the relevant
statutes.
Judge Reiss rules that (i) because the Plaintiffs have failed to
adequately plead a violation of the right of publicity under Cal.
Civ. Code Section 3344, Orvis' motion to dismiss Count I is
granted; (ii) because the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly plead
the essential elements of the IRPA claim, Orvis' motion to dismiss
Count II is granted; and (iii) the Plaintiffs' Ohio claims do not
allege that Orvis was "taking advantage of their reputation,
prestige, or other value associated with them, for purposes of
publicity, so she grants Orvis' motion to dismiss Count III.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Reiss grants Orvis' motion to
dismiss. Because the Plaintiffs' claims are novel and may benefit
from repleading, she grants the Plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint within 20 days of her Opinion and Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4ztrr7ry from Leagle.com.
PARADISE EXTERIORS: Extension of Expert Disclosure Deadlines Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN DUMAS, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. PARADISE EXTERIORS, LLC,
Case No. 9:22-cv-80356-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court
to enter an order extending the class certification expert
disclosure deadlines by two weeks, up to and including October 26,
2022 for the expert disclosures and November 14, 2022 for the
rebuttal expert disclosures.
Paradise Exteriors is family owned and operated hurricane impact
window and door company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S8fLmF at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
The Defendant is represented by
Diane J. Zelmer, Esq.
BERENSON LLP
4495 Military Trail, Suite 203
Jupiter FL 33458
Telephone: (561) 429-4496
Facsimile: (703) 991-2195
E-mail: djz@berensonllp.com
hac@berensonllp.com
PEARL RIVER MART: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pearl River Mart NYC
LLC. The case is styled as Miriam Cruz, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Pearl River Mart NYC LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-06139 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Pearl River Mart NYC -- https://pearlriver.com/ -- is an iconic NYC
destination for Asian-inspired home goods, fashion, snacks and
everything in between.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRICT: Renewed Bid for Class Cert Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sargent, et al., v. School
District of Philadelphia, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01509-CFK (E.D.
Pa.), the plaintiffs move to certify a class of parents and
students under Rule 23.
In the alternative, the class may be certified under Rule 23(b)(3).
The class, if certified, will be represented by the plaintiffs
Sherice Sargent, Michele Sheridan, and Joshua Meyer -- each
individually and as next friend of their minor children.
The proposed class consists of:
-- all students and parents of students who:
(1) applied for admission to a Philadelphia criteria-based
school but were denied admission because of the school
district's racially discriminatory admissions
standards; or
(2) will apply for admission to a criteria-based school in
the future but face an increased risk of being denied
admission because of the school district's decision to
abandon merits-based admission standards and motion
for class certification pursue racial balancing in the
student body of its criteria-based schools.
The common characteristics of these class members is that they are
all parents of students, or students themselves, who have been or
will be adversely affected by the Philadelphia school district's
racially discriminatory admissions policies.
On May 10, 2022, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification. On May 12, 2022, the Court denied the motion without
prejudice and ordered that the motion "be resubmitted for
consideration after the close of pleadings and a ruling is made on
the demand for a preliminary injunction."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 13,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SpbtHJ
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Walter S. Zimolong III, Esq.
ZIMOLONG, LLC
Post Office Box 552
Villanova, PA 19085-0552
Telephone: (215) 665-0842
E-mail: wally@zimolonglaw.com
- and -
Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
MITCHELL LAW PLLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 686-3940
Facsimile: (512) 686-3941
E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law
- and -
Gene P. Hamilton, Esq.
VICE-PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL
AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION
300 Independence Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20003
Telephone: (202) 964-3721
E-mail: gene.hamilton@aflegal.org
PINNACLE WEST CAPITAL: Skrtich Sues Over ERISA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Jerome M. Skrtich and Joseph F. Peck, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Pinnacle West Capital Corporation,
the Benefit Administration Committee of the Pinnacle West Capital
Corporation Retirement Plan and John/Jane Does 1-5, Case No.
2:22-cv-01753-DMF (D. Ariz., Oct. 13, 2022), is brought against
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, the Benefit Administration
Committee of the Pinnacle West Capital Corporation Retirement Plan
(the "Committee") and the Committee's individual members concerning
the failure to pay joint and survivor annuity ("JSA") benefits
under the Pinnacle West Capital Corporation Retirement Plan (the
"Plan") in amounts that satisfy the actuarial equivalence
requirements in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974. By failing to pay JSA benefits in amounts that are
actuarially equivalent to the single life annuities offered to
participants under the Plan, the Defendants cause retirees to lose
part of their vested retirement benefits in violation of ERISA.
Pinnacle West sponsors the Plan. Under the Plan, participants earn
retirement benefits in the form of a single life annuity, which the
Plan calls a "straight life annuity" ("SLA"). An SLA provides
participants with monthly payments for the rest of their lives when
they retire. The Plan also offers participants three joint and
survivor ("JSA") options. A JSA is an annuity for the participant's
life with a contingent annuity payable to the participant's
beneficiary (usually a spouse), which is expressed as a percentage
of the amount paid during the participant's life. The Plan offers
JSAs in percentages of 50, 75 and 100. Thus, a 50% JSA is a JSA
that pays the spouse half of the amount that was paid to the
participant before his or her death; a 75% JSA pays the spouse
three quarters; and a 100% JSA pays the same amount. Both of the
Plaintiffs are receiving 100% JSAs.
Calculating present value requires inputting actuarial assumptions
concerning projected mortality and interest rates. Mortality tables
for the participant (and, in the case of a JSA, the participant's
beneficiary) predict how long the participant and beneficiary will
live to account for the likelihood of each future benefit payment
being made. Over the last several decades, mortality rates have
generally improved with advances in medicine and better collective
lifestyle habits. People who retired recently are expected to live
longer than those who retired in previous generations. Older
mortality tables predict that people near (and after) retirement
age will die at a faster rate than current mortality tables. As a
result, using an older mortality table decreases the present value
of a JSA and--interest rates being equal--the monthly payments
retirees receive.
To determine the amount of a benefit, mortality and interest rate
assumptions, together, generate a "conversion factor," which is
expressed as a percentage of the benefit being compared. The
conversion factor can also be calculated by dividing the actual
amounts payable under the plan. The Defendants calculate the
conversion factor and, therefore, the present value of the JSAs
offered to participants, using the 1971 Group Annuity Mortality
Table for Males (the "1971 GAM"), a mortality table that is over 50
years old. By using mortality tables based on data from the 1960s,
Defendants depress the present value of JSA benefits (relative to
the SLA) resulting in monthly payments that are materially lower
than they would be if Defendants used reasonable, up-to-date
actuarial assumptions. In sum, the Defendants are causing the
Plaintiffs and Class Members to receive less than they should as a
pension benefit each month, which will continue to affect them
throughout their retirements.
The Defendants' conduct is particularly egregious because Pinnacle
West uses current, updated actuarial assumptions to calculate and
report its Plan liabilities in its audited financial statements and
then justifies increasing its customers' utility rates because of
these increased liabilities. For example, Pinnacle West's pension
liabilities increased by $67 million when it updated the mortality
assumption in 2014 to the most-recent applicable table and then
cited this increase as a reason for increasing the utility rates it
charges customers. In other words, Pinnacle West uses current,
realistic mortality assumptions when reporting its pension costs to
justify increasing the utility rates it charges customers, but uses
mortality rates from the 1960s when calculating retirees' Plan
benefits.
The Plaintiffs seek an order from the Court declaring that the
actuarial assumptions used to calculate JSA benefits under the Plan
produce benefits that are less than the actuarial equivalent of the
SLA offered to participants; requiring Defendants to pay all
amounts improperly withheld in the past and to be withheld in the
future; requiring Defendants to recalculate Plaintiffs' JSA
benefits in a manner consistent with ERISA's actuarial equivalence
requirements; requiring Defendants to increase the amounts of the
Plaintiffs' future benefit payments; and such other relief as the
Court determines to be just and equitable, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are Plan participants who worked for Pinnacle West.
Pinnacle West is a holding company that is headquartered and has
its principal place of business in Phoenix, Arizona.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ron Kilgard, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: (602) 248-0088
Facsimile: (602) 248-2822
Email: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com
PIZZA PALS INC: Santiago Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gregorio Santiago, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. PIZZA PALS INC. d/b/a GRAVESEND PIZZA, and JOSEPH POSA,
Case No. 1:22-cv-06188 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022), is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law, that he is entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid
overtime compensation due to a fixed salary, liquidated damages,
statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.
Throughout his employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff was
scheduled to work from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. for 6 days per week,
for a total of 42 hours per week. However, Plaintiff SANTIAGO was
not paid overtime premiums for the 2 overtime hours he worked each
week, and there was no agreement that his fixed salary would cover
overtime premiums.
The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants willfully filed
fraudulent information returns regarding Plaintiff and Class
Members with the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). The Plaintiff
further alleges on behalf of himself, and others similarly
situated, that the Defendants breached their contract with
Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to pay employer payroll
taxes for Plaintiff and Class Members, as required by the Federal
Insurance Contribution Act, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff started working as a pizzaman for the Defendants at
their Pizzeria in April 2021.
The Defendants operate a pizzeria under the trade name "Gravesend
Pizza," located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: 212-465-1180
Fax: 212-465-1181
PLAID ENTERPRISES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plaid Enterprises,
Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Plaid Enterprises, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08698 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Plaid Enterprises, Inc. -- https://plaidonline.com/ -- is one of
the world's largest, most diverse manufacturers of creative
do-it-yourself products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
PREMIER NUTRITION: Court Approves $25K Service Award for Montera
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY BETH MONTERA, Plaintiff v. PREMIER NUTRITION
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-06980-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California enters an order:
a. denying the Defendant's renewed motion for judgment as a
matter of law;
b. denying the Defendant's for a new trial; and
c. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion
seeking an award of attorney fees, reimbursement of
expenses, and a service award for Ms. Montera.
Ms. Montera brought this lawsuit on behalf of New York consumers
who had purchased Joint Juice, a beverage containing glucosamine
and chondroitin that is sold by Premier. The case was brought as
one of numerous certified class actions alleging false advertising
and other claims arising from Premier's promotion of Joint Juice, a
line of joint health dietary supplements. Each class action
concerns a set of plaintiffs in a different state.
Initially filed in December 2016, this action concerned consumers
in New York and was the first of the related cases to proceed to
trial. The case proceeded to trial in May and June 2022. Following
a nine-day trial in May and June 2022, the jury returned a verdict
finding that Premier engaged in deceptive acts and practices, in
violation of GBL Section 349, and deceptive or misleading
advertising, in violation of the New York General Business Law
("GBL")Section 350. Judgment in the amount of $12,895,454.90 was
thereafter entered against the Defendant and in favor of the
Plaintiff and the Class in July 2022, after which the parties each
filed post-trial motions.
The Defendant brings a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of
law ("JMOL") and moves for a new trial, while the Plaintiff brings
a motion seeking an award of attorney fees, reimbursement of
expenses, and a service award for Ms. Montera.
In its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, Premier
raises several familiar arguments, including that the Plaintiff
failed to prove the elements of injury, causation, materiality, and
deceptiveness.
Judge Seeborg finds that some of these arguments have been
augmented, but nothing in the record has changed: the jury's
verdict was supported by ample evidence as to each element of both
claims, and thus a reasonable jury would have had a legally
sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the Plaintiff. The
Defendant's additional arguments were not raised in its initial
motion for JMOL. The only further inquiry is thus limited to
reviewing the jury's verdict for plain error and reversing "only if
such plain error would result in a manifest miscarriage of
justice." Again, the jury's verdict was not plainly erroneous; as
noted, it was well supported. Hence, the motion is denied.
Next, Premier presents numerous arguments for why it is entitled to
a new trial. Like with its renewed motion for JMOL, Judge Seeborg
finds that nearly all of them have been raised before and can be
dismissed outright, including that: (1) the Defendant was not
entitled to invoke the GBL's safe harbor provision due to its
failure timely to notify the FDA as required by the statute, and
thus it was not entitled to a jury instruction on this subject; and
(2) Premier's Seventh Amendment rights were not violated. None of
these arguments individually warrant a new trial, nor is Premier's
argument, as a whole, greater than the sum of its parts. Its motion
is therefore denied.
In the Plaintiff's motion seeking an award of attorney fees,
reimbursement of expenses, and a service award, the parties'
positions yield two drastically different values and two very
different outcomes for the Class's recovery. Under the Plaintiff's
model, the Class would retain most or all of the $12.89 million
judgment, and Premier would be obligated to pay an additional $6.8
million award of fees and expenses to the Plaintiff's counsel
directly. By contrast, the Defendant's model would result in the
Plaintiff's counsel receiving roughly $3.5 million less and, since
the award would be drawn from the judgment, the Class itself would
bear this cost and receive roughly $9.69 million.
Judge Seeborg denies the Plaintiff's request for attorney fees,
without prejudice, holding that the declarations submitted by her
counsel are "insufficient" to conduct a fulsome lodestar analysis,
as they lack contemporaneous time records. He directs the Plaintiff
to refile its motion with contemporaneous time records.
In addition to attorney fees, the Plaintiff seeks $1,133,794.77 in
reimbursed expenses. Given that the Plaintiff will be afforded the
opportunity to submit a more detailed request for attorney fees,
she will likewise be given the opportunity to refile the motion
with more detailed expense documentation. The motion is therefore
denied with respect to expenses, without prejudice.
Finally, the Plaintiff requests a $25,000 service award for Ms.
Montera. The Defendant does not contest the award, and the award is
both comparable to similar awards in this District and reasonable
considering her experience participating in this case. The motion
is therefore granted with respect to the service award, with the
award to be paid from the judgment.
For these reasons, Judge Seeborg denies the Defendant's renewed
motion for JMOL and its motion for new trial. He grants the
Plaintiff's motion only with respect to the request for a service
award for Ms. Montera. It is denied in all other respects, without
prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y42rce5c from Leagle.com.
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Eves Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Donald Eves, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons v. Progressive Advanced
Insurance Company, Case No. 220301730 was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 13,
2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04112 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.
Progressive Advanced Insurance Company --
https://www.progressive.com/ -- operates as an insurance firm. The
Company underwrites motor vehicle insurance policies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Haggerty, Esq.
HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER, & KUPERSMITH
1801 Market Street, Suite 100
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (267) 350-6633
Email: jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com
- and -
John P. Goodrich, Esq.
429 Fourth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 261-4663
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Highway, Second Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Phone: (856) 772-7200
Email: ecf@shublawyers.com
- and -
Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER P.C.
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Phone: (717) 232-6300
Email: scooper@schmidtkramer.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
1114 Ave. of The Americas 38th Fl
New York, NY 10036-7703
Phone: (212) 389-5000
Email: kymberlykochis@eversheds-sutherland.com
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Drummond, et al., File Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEON DRUMMOND, LEE
WILLIAMS, and YESHONDA DRIGGINS, on behalf of themselves and all
others situated, v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:21-cv-04479-EGS
(E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the following Classes pursuant to Rule 23(a)
and (b)(3):
Progressive Advance Class:
"All person who made a first-party claim on a policy of
insurance issued by Progresive Advance Insurance Company
to a Pennsylvania resdent who, from October 12, 2017
through the date an order granting class certification is
entered, received compensation was based a "dual
source"valuation report prepared by Mitchell (i.e. report
type code = "DSCN") and the actual cash value was
decreased based upon the Project Sold Adjustments to the
comparable vehicles used to determine actual cash value;"
and
Progressive Specialty Class:
"All person who made a first-party claim on a policy of
insurance issued by Progresive Specialty Insurance Company
to a Pennsylvania resdent who, from October 12, 2017
through the date an order granting class certification is
entered, received compensation was based a "dual
source"valuation report prepared by Mitchell (i.e. report
type code = "DSCN") and the actual cash value was
decreased based upon the Project Sold Adjustments to the
comparable vehicles used to determine actual cash value;"
2. appointing them as Class Representatives;
3. appointing the undersigned as Class Counsel; and
4. directing the Parties to submit a Joint Notice Plan – or,
if they are unable to agree, competing proposed Notice
Plans -- within 14 days of the entry of the Order
certifying the Class.
Progressive Specialty operates as an insurance firm.
A copy of the Plaintiffs motion to certify class dated Oct. 12,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eGLygY
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
Amy L. Judkins, Esq.
NORMAND PLLC
3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
Orlando, FL 32803
Telephone: (407) 603-6031
E-mail: amy.judkins@normandpllc.com
jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com
- and -
Hank Bates, Esq.
Lee Lowther, Esq.
Tiffany Oldham, Esq.
Jake G. Windley, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 W. 7th St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
llowther@cbplaw.com
toldham@cbplaw.com
jwindley@cbplaw.com
- and -
Ruben Honik, Esq.
David J. Stanoch, Esq.
HONIK LLC
1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 435-1300
E-mail: ruben@honiklaw.com
david@honiklaw.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON
& MILLEN LLC
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 234-6487
E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
Christopher Gold, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
chris@edelsberglaw.com
RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert. Deadlines
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA GRADY v. RCM
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00842-JLS-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the
Parties stipulate that the briefing schedule and hearing date for
Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification be modified
as follows:
Deadline Current Proposed
Date Date
-- Last Day to File a Motion Sept. 9, 2022 Jan. 6, 2023
to Add Parties or Amend
Pleadings:
-- Last Day to File a Motion Jan. 20, 2023 May 19, 2023
for Class Certification:
-- Last Day to File an Feb. 21, 2023 June 20, 2023
Opposition to Motion
for Class Certification:
-- Last Day to File a Reply March 14, 2023 July 11, 2023
to Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Fact Discovery Cutoff: June 30, 2023 Oct. 30, 2023
-- Last Day to File Motions July 14, 2023 Nov. 17, 2023
(Excluding Daubert Motions
and all other Motions in
Limine):
-- Last Day to Serve Initial July 14, 2023 Nov. 17, 2023
Expert Reports:
-- Last Day to Serve Rebuttal Aug. 11, 2023 Dec. 22, 2023
Expert Reports:
-- Expert Discovery Cutoff: Sept. 8, 2023 Jan. 19, 2024
-- Last Day to Conduct Sept. 1, 2023 Jan. 5, 2024
Settlement Proceedings
-- Last Day to File Feb. 2, 2024 May 31, 2024
Motions in Limine and
Daubert Motions
-- Final Pretrial March 1, 2024 June 28, 2024
Conference:
RCM is a provider of business and technology solutions designed to
enhance and maximize the operational performance.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 13,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F0lFDt
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Konecky, Esq.
Nathan Piller, 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
- and -
Shannon R. Boyce, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067.3107
Telephone: 310.553.0308
Facsimile: 310.553.5583
E-mail: sboyce@littler.com
The Defendants are represented by
Martha J. Keon, Bar No. 213771
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Three Parkway
1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400
Philadelphia, PA 19072
Telephone: (267) 402-3050
Facsimile: (267) 402-3131
E-mail: mkeon@littler.com
RESEARCH ENHANCED: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Research Enhanced
Design + Development, Inc. The case is styled as Joyce Carrico, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Research
Enhanced Design + Development, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08676
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Research Enhanced Design + Development Inc provides catering
services. The Company offers bars, chocolate, peanut butter,
oatmeal, and brown rice..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Solomon Nematzadeh, Esq.
NEMATZADEH PLLC
101 Avenue of the Americas, Ste. 9th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Phone: (646) 417-8424
Email: jsn@nematlawyers.com
RITE AID: Robbins Geller Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that
purchasers or acquirers of Rite Aid Corporation (NYSE: RAD)
securities between April 14, 2022 and September 28, 2022, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period") have until December 19, 2022
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Rite Aid class action
lawsuit. Captioned Page v. Rite Aid Corporation, No. 22-cv-04201
(E.D. Pa.), the Rite Aid class action lawsuit charges Rite Aid and
certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Rite Aid class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-rite-aid-corporation-class-action-lawsuit-rad.html
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Rite Aid operates through two segments, Retail
Pharmacy and Pharmacy Services. Rite Aid's Pharmacy Services
segment provides an integrated suite of pharmacy benefit management
("PBM") offerings through, among other things, Rite Aid's Elixir
subsidiary, including technology solutions, mail delivery services,
specialty pharmacy, network and rebate administration, claims
adjudication, and pharmacy discount programs.
The Rite Aid class action lawsuit alleges that defendants
throughout the Class Period failed to disclose that: (i) despite
representations to the contrary, the number of new members (i.e.,
"lives") that the Elixir PBM services business was adding during
the selling season ending on January 1, 2023 was in material
decline; and (ii) Rite Aid was likely to recognize a significant
charge for the impairment of goodwill related to Elixir due to a
decrease in "lives" covered by Elixir's PBM services business.
On September 29, 2022, Rite Aid announced a $252.2 million charge
for the impairment of goodwill related to Rite Aid's Elixir
subsidiary. On an earnings call held later in the day, Rite Aid's
CFO, defendant Matt Schroeder, explained that the large impairment
charge was related to Elixir based on "an update to our estimate of
lives for 2023 based on the latest selling season," and that Rite
Aid "expected[ed] lives to go down." On this news, Rite Aid's stock
price fell by more than 28.02%, damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
Rite Aid securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the Ride Aid class action lawsuit. A lead
plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the Rite Aid
class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of
its choice to litigate the Rite Aid class action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Rite Aid class
action lawsuit.[GN]
RUDYS MUSIC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rudys Music Soho,
Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Rudys Music Soho, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-06135 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Rudys Music Soho -- https://rudysmusic.com/ -- is a musical
instrument store specializing in vintage, new & pre-owned acoustic,
electric & bass guitars.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
S & P MINI: Faces Paulino Suit Over Deli Workers' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS BELLO PAULINO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. S & P MINI MARKET CORP. (D/B/A S &
P MINI MARKET CORP.) and AMANTINO VEGA ROSARIO, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-08724 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022) is brought against the
Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the
New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to work as a deli man at S
& P Mini Market from approximately 2012 until January 2021.
S & P Mini Market Corp. operates a deli located in the Melrose
section of the Bronx in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
S1 SECURITY GROUP: Mendiburt Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Yainier E. Mendiburt and other similarly-situated individuals v. S1
SECURITY GROUP INC, and ROLANDO E. PALMA, individually, Case No.
1:22-cv-23319-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 13, 2022), is brought for
unpaid overtime wages under the laws of the United States pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was compensated for all his working hours at his
regular rate of $12.00 an hour. However, Plaintiff was not paid for
overtime hours, as required by law. Plaintiff clocked in and out,
and Defendants were able to track and monitor the hours worked by
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals. Therefore,
during the relevant period of time, Defendants willfully failed to
pay Plaintiff overtime wages at the rate of time and one-half his
regular rate for every hour that she worked in excess of 40, in
violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff never agreed with the lack of
payment for overtime hours, and he complained multiple times about
unpaid overtime hours to his superiors, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff had duties as a security officer.
S1 SECURITY GROUP is a Florida corporation that provides security
services to businesses, residential communities, construction
sites, retailers, and related security services such as executive
bodyguard protection.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
SCENARIO COCKRAM: Court Enters Final Judgment in Nese Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David O. Carter of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California enters Final Judgment in the lawsuit
entitled ERICA NESE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. SCENARIO COCKRAM USA, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive Defendant, Case No.
8:21-cv-00814-DOC-JDE (C.D. Cal.).
The Action has been settled pursuant to the Settlement Agreement,
and the Court has entered an Order Granting Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement and Dismissing Plaintiff's Claims.
Judgment is entered on the First Amended Complaint filed on June 2,
2021.
All of the Plaintiff's and the Settlement Class Members' claims
that are Released Claims or the Plaintiff's Released Claims are
dismissed on the merits and with prejudice, without fees (including
attorneys' fees) or costs to any party, except as otherwise
provided in the Settlement Agreement and Order Granting Final
Approval of Final.
The Plaintiff and the Class Members have released the Released
Claims as against the Released Parties, and are permanently barred
from filing, commencing, prosecuting, intervening in, or
participating in (as class members or otherwise) any action in any
jurisdiction based on any of the Released Claims.
Without affecting the finality of this Judgment, the Court retains
jurisdiction over the construction, interpretation, consummation,
implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and the
releases contained therein.
The First Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
The Settlement Class Members will promptly dismiss with prejudice
all Released Claims brought by any Settlement Class Member in any
jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Final Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2uwnrjyh from Leagle.com.
SCRIBE OPCO: Jones Wins Bid to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC JONES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SCRIBE OPCO,
INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-2945-VMC-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Virginia M. Hernandez Covington entered an order certifying a
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act of 1988 (WARN) Nationwide
Class as follows:
"All persons employed by Defendant, who worked at one of
Defendant's facilities in Florida or , which employed 50 or
more full-time employees, excluding part-time employees (as
defined under the WARN Act) (the "Facilities"), who were laid
off or furloughed without cause on their part, on or about
March 25, 2020, or within thirty days of that date or
thereafter as part of, or as the reasonably expected
consequence of, a mass layoff (as defined by the WARN Act) at
the Facilities which lasted longer than six months, who not
timely opt-out of the class, but excluding individuals who,
according to Defendant's records, declined reinstatement."
-- The Plaintiff Eric Jones's Motion for Class Certification
is granted as to the nationwide class definition included
in Jones's second amended complaint.
-- The Plaintiff Eric Jones is appointed as lead plaintiff
and class representative.
-- Brandon J. Hill, Esq. and Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. of Wenzel
Fenton Cabassa, P.A. are appointed as co-lead class
counsel.
-- Within 14 days from the date of this Order, the parties
shall file a identification joint of notice class that (1)
describes members and their the contact information; (2)
describes the method of disseminating class notice; and
-- Prior to filing the joint notice, the directed to meet and
confer and agree to the extent possible on these issues.
To the extent the parties cannot agree, their disagreement
should be described, along with short legal briefing, in
the joint notice.
In short, Jones has satisfied all of Rule 23's requirements and the
Court will certify the nationwide class as defined in the reply to
the Motion, the Court says.
Jones initiated this putative class action against Scribe -- his
former employer -- on December 9, 2020. Subsequently, after a stay
of the case, Jones filed an amended complaint on December 6, 2021,
asserting a claim for violation of the WARN Act.
After his Motion for Certification was fully briefed, Jones filed a
second amended complaint asserting the same WARN Act claim but
amending the class definition.
Jones alleges he "was furloughed on March 26, 2020" after Scribe
sent him and many other employees a memo on March 25, 2020, stating
that they were being "laid off."
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CTIDtk at no extra charge.[CC]
SEISEIDOU AMERICA: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seiseidou America,
Inc. The case is styled as Tonimarie Rhone, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Seiseidou America, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-08675 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Seiseidou America, Inc. -- https://seiseidou-usa.com/ -- seek,
develop, and validate scalable economic models and new
opportunities to innovate unique products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
SESEN BIO INC: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial OK
------------------------------------------------------------
Sesen Bio, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report for the current
report dated October 4, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 4, 2022, that on October 4, 2022,
Sesen Bio, Inc. announced that the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York has set a final settlement approval
hearing for the previously disclosed consolidated shareholder class
action captioned "In re Sesen Bio, Inc. Securities Litigation,"
Master File No. 1:21-cv-07025-AKH 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.
As disclosed in a Current Report on Form 8-K dated September 29,
2022, the court issued an order on September 28, 2022, granting
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement of the Securities
Litigation.
Sesen Bio, Inc. is a clinical company based in Massachusetts.
SHAKESTIR LLC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shakestir LLC. The
case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Shakestir LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08691 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
ShakeStir -- https://www.shakestir.com/ -- provides bartenders and
spirit professionals with an interactive online platform to search
& connect with fellow bartenders in cities & countries around the
globe.[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
SHAY HUGHES: Bartole Suit Tossed for Not Having Actionable Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Philip P. Simon of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, Hammond Division, dismisses the case, MARCUS
T. BARTOLE, Plaintiff v. SHAY HUGHES, et al., Defendants, Cause No.
2:22-CV-257-PPS-JPK (N.D. Ind.), for failing to state any
actionable claims.
Mr. Bartole, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint against
his former attorney, Hughes, both individually and as an
"organization/entity." He seeks to proceed on behalf of himself and
a class of unnamed inmates whom he alleges were harmed by the
Defendant.
In a nutshell, Bartole believes that Hughes violated various
professional responsibility and ethics rules, state statutes, the
Constitution, and federal laws by providing ineffective assistance
of counsel to the inmates confined at the Tippecanoe County Jail.
He alleges that Hughes violated his oath under the Indiana Rules
for Admission to the Bar and the Discipline of Attorneys.
Hughes, in that vein, has allegedly defrauded the judicial system
and the public by accepting tax dollars to represent clients in an
unfit manner, claiming that he uses the Indiana Criminal Code and
the state bond policy to detain his clients and obtain a
"collective cash cow." Bartole claims that Hughes applies the law
unequally to socio-economically disadvantaged sex offenders, like
Bartole himself. He claims that Hughes has failed to file various
motions on behalf of his clients that could have led to a reduction
of bond or outright release -- instead, Hughes uses the law to
"indefinitely confine/commit his clients" and pressure them to
accept plea deals even when they are innocent.
Mr. Bartole claims that Hughes merely collects the money awarded to
him for being 'appointed' counsel and does no legitimate
work/perform any duty. He also alleges that Hughes has conspired
with various unnamed state officials to violate the constitutional
rights of inmates.
Mr. Bartole has sued Hughes in his individual capacity, as well as
"Shay Hughes organization/entity." He seeks prospective monetary
relief and prospective, declaratory and injunctive relief only
under Federal law. He asks me to enjoin Hughes and his unnamed
conspirators from enforcing policies, practices, or procedures that
violate the Constitution. He also wants Hughes to be disbarred.
As an initial matter, Judge Simon opines that Bartole will not be
permitted to bring suit on behalf of other inmates as part of a
class action lawsuit or otherwise. As an initial matter, Bartole
will not be permitted to bring suit on behalf of other inmates as
part of a class action lawsuit or otherwise.
While Bartole may bring claims against Hughes on his own behalf,
Judge Simon finds that this complaint doesn't state any. The
overall gist is that Hughes' incompetent legal assistance has led
to Bartole's "indefinite" imprisonment. However, Bartole's
unhappiness with his representation doesn't support a viable
constitutional violation in this context.
Judge Simon concludes that the complaint does not state any claims.
He says the usual standard in civil cases is to allow defective
pleadings to be corrected, especially in early stages, at least
where amendment would not be futile. However, courts have broad
discretion to deny leave to amend where the amendment would be
futile. For the reasons previously explained, such is the case
here.
Accordingly, Judge Simon dismisses the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915A because the complaint does not state any actionable
claims.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/muwzw3ex from Leagle.com.
SHERWOOD MANAGEMENT: Bashir Seeks Sales Associates' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAFEER BASHIR, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved
Employees; Plaintiff v. SHERWOOD MANAGEMENT CO., INC., and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22SMCV01886 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 13, 2022) is a Private Attorney
General Action complaint, pursuant to the California Labor Code,
brought by the Plaintiff arising from Defendants' alleged unlawful
labor policies and practices.
The Plaintiff brings this suit over the Defendants' failure to
provide employment records; failure to pay overtime and double
time; failure to provide rest and meal periods; failure to keep
accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements;
failure to pay reporting time wages; failure to pay split shift
wages; failure to pay all wages earned on time; failure to pay all
wages earned upon discharge or resignation; failure to provide
notice of paid sick time and accrual; and failure to reimburse
necessary, business-related expenses.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of
sales associate on April 15, 2022 until May 3, 2022.
Sherwood Management Co., Inc. retails jewelry for men and women
serving customers in the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
Kevin P. Crough, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
cathy@hbklawyers.com
kevin@hbklawyers.com
SNAP INC: Deadline for Residents to Submit Claims Set Nov. 5
------------------------------------------------------------
If you're an Illinois resident and have used Snapchat at any point
since November 2015, you're eligible to submit a claim as part of a
multi-million dollar class-action settlement against the social
media app.
However, the clock is ticking for Illinoisans to get their piece of
the pie, with the deadline coming up on Nov. 5.
The suit alleges that users' biometric data was collected without
their consent via the "Lenses" and "Filters" features, violating
Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Illinois' Biometric Privacy Act prohibits private sector companies
and institutions from collecting biometric data from unsuspecting
citizens in the state or online, no matter where the business is
based. Data cannot be sold, transferred or traded. Unlike any other
state, citizens can sue for alleged violations, which has sparked
hundreds of David-and-Goliath legal battles against some of the
world's most powerful companies.
If a company is found to have violated Illinois law, citizens can
collect civil penalties up to $5,000 per violation compounded by
the number of people affected and days involved. No state
regulatory agency is involved in enforcement.
At the center of the allegations is Snapchat's Lenses features,
which allows users to take a "Snap," and then select a particular
lens and modify their facial features with special effects,
according to court documents. The lawsuit claims Lenses involves
the use of technology to create a face scan and "creating,
obtaining and storing" a user's unique biometric identifiers.
The feature obtained the plaintiffs' biometric information without
obtaining informed written consent each time it scanned their
faces, the suit alleges.
The lawsuit, filed in May, is similar to another recent
class-action lawsuit specific to Illinois Facebook users.
In the Facebook settlement, more than one million Illinois Facebook
users began receiving checks following a $650 million settlement in
a class-action suit alleging it violated residents' rights by
collecting and storing digital scans of their faces without
permission.
Microsoft, Amazon and Google are among the companies that have also
been accused of violations.
How Much is the Settlement For?
A $35 million settlement has been reached in the case, though that
amount still needs to go through a final approval hearing, which is
scheduled for November.
Snapchat Inc.'s settlement was reached after a court did not find
in favor of either the company nor the plaintiffs, meaning the
social media platform did not admit fault.
"Snap continues to vehemently deny that Lenses violate BIPA, which
was designed to require notice and consent before collecting
biometric information used to identify people," a Snap spokesperson
told NBC 5 in a statement.
"We deeply value the privacy of our community, and Snapchat Lenses
do not collect biometric data that can be used to identify a
specific person, or engage in facial identification. For example,
Lenses can be used to identify an eye or a nose as being part of a
face, but cannot identify an eye or a nose as belonging to any
specific person. Moreover, even the limited data that is used to
power Lenses is never sent to Snap's servers - the data never
leaves the user's mobile device. And while we are confident that
Lenses do not violate BIPA, out of an abundance of caution and as a
testament to our commitment to user privacy, earlier this year we
rolled out an in-app consent notice for Snapchatters in Illinois."
Are You Eligible to File a Claim?
According to the settlement website, any Illinois resident who used
Snapchat Lenses or Filters between Nov. 17, 2015, and now is
eligible to submit a claim.
Since BIPA is an Illinois law, it only applies to state residents.
How Do You Submit a Claim? When is the Deadline?
The deadline for eligible residents to submit their claims is
currently Nov. 5, according to a website dedicated to the
settlement.[GN]
SONUS NETWORKS: Misleads Investors on Sales Outlook, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martina Barash at shareholders adequately alleged that Sonus
Networks Inc. and some of its executives committed securities fraud
related to sales projections, a federal court said more than three
years after the company asked it to toss the proposed class
action.
Plaintiffs Guiseppe Veleno, Gary Williams, and Ron Miller plausibly
alleged the defendants had the necessary state of mind, and so the
investors can advance their claims against the technology company
and three of its executives, Judge George A. O'Toole Jr. said for
the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts.[GN]
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid for Dismissal of Luo Suit Due Nov. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE CHUNG LUO, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., JOSEPH W. TURGEON, KURT A. GUSTAFSON, FRANCOIS J. LEBEL,
M.D., and THOMAS J. RIGA, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01612-CDS-BNW (D. Nev.), Judge Christina D. Silva of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada enters an order
regarding briefing schedule for the Defendants' anticipated Motion
to Dismiss the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.
On Sept. 26, 2022, Lead Plaintiff ITG filed an Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint ("ACCAC") which differs substantially from
the prior complaint. Among other differences, the ACCAC: (1) is
brought by a new plaintiff, ITG; (2) is more than twice the length
of the prior complaint; (3) has added allegations concerning a
different drug candidate, Poziotinib; (4) posits a different class
period than the prior complaint; and (5) has added a new individual
defendant, Spectrum Chief Executive Officer Thomas J. Riga.
The Defendants have reviewed the ACCAC and intend to file a motion
to dismiss it (the "MTD").
The Parties have met and conferred and, subject to Court approval,
agree that an extended briefing schedule is appropriate for the MTD
given the new allegations in the ACCAC, the complexity of the
anticipated briefing, and the upcoming holiday season.
Specifically, they agree to the following deadlines for the MTD
briefing schedule:
a. By Nov. 30, 2022, the Defendants will file the MTD,
b. By Jan. 27, 2023, the Lead Plaintiff will file an
opposition to the MTD, and
c. By Feb. 27, 2023, the Defendant will file a reply in
support of the MTD.
In her Oct. 4, 2022 Minute Order, Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler
ordered that stipulations and proposed orders by the Parties
concerning the response date to the ACCAC and related briefing of
the MTD be bifurcated and submitted separately between Judge
Weksler and the District Court, respectfully.
Pursuant to the Parties' agreement and Judge Weksler's Oct. 4, 2022
Minute Order, on Oct. 7, 2022, the Defendants submitted a separate
Stipulation and Proposed Order requesting that Defendants' deadline
to file the MTD be set for Nov. 30, 2022. Judge Weksler adopted the
proposed order and set the deadline for the MTD as Nov. 30, 2022.
Pursuant to Judge Weksler's Oct. 4, 2022 Minute Order, the Parties
request that the District Court adopts the other two deadlines
included in their agreement. They therefore stipulated and agreed
that (i) the Lead Plaintiff may file an opposition to the MTD by
Jan. 27, 2023; and (ii) the Defendants may file a reply brief in
further support of the MTD by Feb. 27, 2023.
Judge Silva so ordered.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 19, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4dhxrsb4 from Leagle.com.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP, CHRISTOPHER H. McGRATH --
chrismcgrath@paulhastings.com -- Costa Mesa, California, Counsel
for All Defendants.
PISANELLI BICE PLLC, JORDAN T. SMITH -- jts@pisanellibice.com --
Las Vegas, Nevada, Counsel for Defendant Spectrum Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.
SPRUCE HOUSE: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Spruce House,
Inc. The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. The Spruce House, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08699 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Spruce -- https://www.thespruce.com/ -- offer practical,
real-life tips and inspiration to help make the best home.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
STATE FARM GENERAL: Pearce Files Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm General
Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Keith Pearce,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
State Farm General Insurance Company, State Farm Fire & Casualty
Company, State Farm Florida Insurance Company, Case No.
9:22-cv-81572-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 13, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.
State Farm General Insurance Company -- https://www.statefarm.com/
-- operates as an insurance company. The Company provides property
liability insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Gravante, III, Esq.
Matthew Weinshall, Esq.
Peter Prieto, Esq.
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
1 S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 358-2800
Fax: (305) 358-2382
Email: jgravante@podhurst.com
mweinshall@podhurst.com
pprieto@podhurst.com
- and -
Michael Picton Rudd, Esq.
RUDD & DIAMOND PA
4000 Hollywood Boulevard
Presidential Circle Suite 165S
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: (305) 379-5006
Fax: (305) 960-2005
Email: mrudd@rudddiamond.com
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Bids to Dismiss Hickman Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AIMEE HICKMAN, JARED HICKMAN, WILLIAM TREASURER, KELLY
DROGOWSKI, FRANK DROGOWSKI, JOHN TAITANO, RICHARD PALERMO, LORI
WOIWODE, SHAWN WOIWODE, CAROLYN PATOL, CASSANDRA SEMBER, AND STEVEN
SEMBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. and SUBARU
CORPORATION f/k/a FUJI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-02100-NLH-AMD (D.N.J.), Judge Noel L. Hillman of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey enters an Opinion:
a. granting in part and denying in part Subaru of America,
Inc.'s ("SOA") motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint;
b. granting in part and denying in part Subaru Corp.'s ("SBR")
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint; and
c. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for judicial notice in its
entirety.
The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action suit against SOA
and SBR alleging that since, 2019, Subaru has manufactured,
marketed, and sold the Ascent model of their cars with dangerous
and defective transmissions. The transmission in question, the
TR690 transmission, a type of Continuously Variable Transmission
("CVT"), allegedly "causes hesitation, jerking, shuddering,
lurching, squeaking, whining, or other loud noises, delays in
acceleration, inconsistent shifting, stalling, and a loss of power
or ability to accelerate at all."
The Plaintiffs claim that when they purchased or leased their
vehicles, they did so pursuant to an express warranty covering
their cars for "defects in materials or workmanship" over a period
of "three-year/36,000-miles." They contend that Subaru was aware of
these defects at least as early as 2011.
The Plaintiffs contend that Subaru has recalled the Ascent multiple
times for various issues, including some related to the
transmission, but has failed to fix the central issue with the
transmission. They further allege that Subaru has known for quite
some time that the transmission defect exists but that has refused
to sufficiently rectify it, going so far as to conceal ongoing
issues to prospective customers and Ascent owners.
The Plaintiffs state that they will seek to certify a nationwide
class and several subclasses. The subclasses include ones for (i)
Maryland, (ii) North Carolina, (iii) Pennsylvania, (iv) California,
(v) Song-Beverly, (vi) Massachusetts, (vi) North Dakota, (vii) New
York, and (vii) Virginia.
The Plaintiffs originally filed a complaint on Feb. 8, 2021. SOA
moved to dismiss that complaint on April 12, 2021. However, on May
14, 2021, before briefing was completed on that motion, the
Plaintiffs superseded that complaint with an amended complaint.
SSOA moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on June 11, 2021 and
SBR moved to dismiss on Dec. 3, 2021.
During the course of briefing, on Jan. 21, 2022, the Plaintiffs
filed a Motion for Judicial Notice of a Part 573 Safety Recall
Report dated Dec. 9, 2021, submitted by SOA to the National Highway
Transportation Safety Administration ("NHTSA"). Then, on Feb. 4,
2022, the parties proposed a further briefing schedule to address
whether the Recall Report mooted any or all of the claims in the
Amended Complaint. Briefing was completed on March 18, 2022.
As a threshold matter prior to addressing any of the parties'
substantive arguments, Judge Hillman considers whether the Dec. 9,
2021 Recall of certain Subaru vehicles moots the action or
necessitates the filing of an amended complaint to address the
Recall. He holds that it does not. Because he finds that this
matter is not prudentially moot and because he finds that he can
fairly assess the other arguments in the Motions to Dismiss
notwithstanding the Recall, he does not require the Plaintiffs to
file an Amended Complaint on this basis.
SOA first argues that Count I, for violation of the express
warranty, must be dismissed because the express warranty disclaims
design defects and SOA argues that the Amended Complaint only
alleges a design defect with the transmission. Judge Hillman
disagrees holding that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
that these defects could be at least partly caused by a
manufacturing defect. The fact that their allegations could be
construed as design defects as well, or in the alternative, is
insufficient to defeat these claims at the motion to dismiss
stage.
SOA next contends that Treasurer has not stated a claim for a
breach of an express or implied warranty. SBR similarly contends
that Treasurer has not stated a claim for breach of implied
warranty against it. Judge Hillman agrees with the Defendants on
this argument. He opines that the Treasurer's claim does not meet
the plausibility pleading standard. The omission of clear
allegations that the Treasurer cannot use his car for its ordinary
purpose is fatal to his implied warranty claim.
The Defendants generally make arguments that are duplicative of the
arguments that they made with respect to Treasurer on the claim of
breach of implied warranty. First, they argue that the Plaintiffs
have not alleged that their cars were not reasonably fit for the
general purposes for which they were sold. Second, SOA argues that
in addition to Treasurer, Taitano, Patol, and the Sembers lack the
necessary privity to assert their claims. SBR makes the same
argument but only for Treasurer, Patol and Sembers.
Judge Hillman disagrees. He is not prepared to hold at the motion
to dismiss stage that a car with a shuddering and malfunctioning
transmission that causes issues steering and merging, which each of
the named Plaintiffs alleges they have in their cars, is a safe and
reliable car. Therefore, other than for Treasurer, he declines to
dismiss implied warranty claims at this stage in the litigation.
The Defendants next argue that the laws of Virginia, California,
and North Carolina require pre-suit notice in order to state claims
of express or implied warranty. Judge Hillman need not consider
this argument as it relates to North Carolina law, as he has
already stated that he will dismiss Treasurer's warranty claims.
Since New Jersey law does not require pre-suit notice, he declines
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' warranty claims on those grounds.
SOA alternatively argues that Taitano has not alleged that he
presented the car for a reasonable number of repairs. Judge Hillman
again disagrees. He finds that Taitano alleges that he brought his
car to the dealership for repair three times to fix the
transmission issue. The fact that the dealership tried to remedy
the car's issues by replacing the battery instead of the
transmission, does not change the Court's view. He thus declines to
dismiss Count VII.
The then Defendants mount several arguments to defeat the
Plaintiffs' claims sounding in fraud. They argue that the
Plaintiffs have not plead with particularity under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 9(b) an affirmative misrepresentation or fraud by
omission. They also argue that the Plaintiffs have not alleged that
Defendants had a duty to disclose and that the economic loss
doctrine bars Plaintiffs' claims.
Judge Hillman disagrees. Among other things, he holds that the
claim against SBR is more tenuous given that it is SOA's foreign
parent company, but the Plaintiffs' allegations that SBR directed
advertisements and written materials related to the Ascent,
convinces the him that dismissal of the claim against SBR for
misrepresentations made in New York would be premature at this
stage.
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' request that the Court
orders them to issue a voluntary recall for the Subaru Ascent is
preempted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of
1966, 49 U.S.C. Section 30101, et seq. Judge Hillman declines to
limit the Plaintiffs' potential remedies at this stage. He finds no
clear controlling precedent on the preemptive effect of the Safety
Act on state law remedies. In light of the other remedies sought by
the Plaintiffs, he declines to opine on this fairly narrow
preemption issue at the motion to dismiss.
Conversely, Judge Hillman grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the claim for future injunctive relief based on false advertising
because the Plaintiffs are past Subaru customers and have not
plausibly pled that they are likely to purchase a Subaru in the
future.
Finally, of the Counts dismissed, Judge Hillman opines it is
possible that Treasurer can plead more particular facts as to why
he continues to suffer harm so as to make out a plausible warranty
claims. As it relates to the effect of the Recall instituted after
the filing of the Amended Complaint, he allows, but not require as
the Defendants request, the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint
addressing that issue if they so choose. The Plaintiffs are given
30 days from the date of the Order accompanying the Opinion to file
an amended complaint with respect to those two issues. However,
Judge Hillman denies leave to amend the claim for injunctive relief
for future false advertising on the grounds that such a claim would
be futile.
An appropriate Order will be entered.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 19, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5t2frbbt from Leagle.com.
ABIGAIL GERTNER -- agertner@bm.net -- NATALIE LESSER --
nlesser@bm.net -- RUSSELL D. PAUL -- rpaul@bm.net -- AMEY J. PARK
-- apark@bm.net -- BERGER MONTAGUE PC, PHILADELPHIA, PA, On behalf
of the Plaintiffs.
NEAL D. WALTERS -- waltersn@ballardspahr.com -- CASEY GENE WATKINS
-- watkinsc@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR LLP, MT. LAUREL, NJ,
On behalf of SOA and SBR.
SUGAR BEETS INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sugar Beets Inc. The
case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Sugar
Beets Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06176 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sugar Beets Inc. -- http://sugarbeetrestaurant.com/is an airy,
brick-&-wood-clad eatery offering an all-day cafe menu with
burgers, eggs & comfort fare.[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
T-MOBILE USA: Taveras Sues Over Delinquent Wage Payments
--------------------------------------------------------
Furcy Taveras, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. T-MOBILE USA INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-08731 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 13, 2022), is brought pursuant to New York Labor Law to
recover damages for delinquent wage payments made to workers.
The Defendant has compensated all its employees on a bi-weekly
(every other week) basis, regardless of whether said employees
qualified as manual laborers under the NYLL. The Defendant has at
no time during the Relevant Period been authorized by the New York
State Department of Labor Commissioner to compensate its employees
who qualify as manual laborers on a bi-weekly basis, in
contravention of NYLL, which requires that without explicit
authorization from the Commissioner, such workers must be
compensated not less frequently than on a weekly basis, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from August 2018 until
February 2020.
T-MOBILE USA INC. is a foreign business corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Phone: (516) 873-9550
TA OPERATING: Peters Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jolene Sabrowsky Peters, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TA Operating, LLC doing
business as: TravelCenters of America Inc., TravelCenters of
America, LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2216864
was removed from the Superior Court of San Bernardino, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 14,
2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-01831-AB-SHK to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt. Relations.
TA Operating LLC, doing business as TravelCenters of America --
http://www.ta-petro.com/owns and operates gasoline service
stations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John G. Yslas, Esq.
Aram Boyadjian, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email: ABoyadjian@wilshirelawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Mia D. Farber, Esq.
Eric J. Gitig, Esq.
Jackson Lewis PC
725 South Figueroa Street Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Phone: (213) 689-0404
Fax: (213) 689-0430
Email: mia.farber@jacksonlewis.com
eric.gitig@jacksonlewis.com
- and -
Semarnpreet Kaur, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS PC
200 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 885-1360
Fax: (949) 885-1380
Email: semarnpreet.kaur@jacksonlewis.com
TARGET CORP: Bayne's Breach of Implied Warranty Claim Proceeds
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIEKE BAYNE and ALYSSA HART, individually on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TARGET
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-05938 (MKV) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denies the Defendant's motion for
reconsideration of the Court's Opinion and Order granting in part
and denying in part its Motion to Dismiss.
Hence, as Judge Vyskocil previously held, the Plaintiffs' breach of
implied warranty claim survives.
On Sept. 23, 2022, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting
in part and denying in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The
Defendant now moves for reconsideration of that decision to the
extent it did not dismiss the Plaintiffs' breach of implied
warranty claim. Specifically, it argues that the Court erred in
concluding that the Plaintiffs' complaint satisfied the notice
requirement under New York law.
Judge Vyskocil finds the Defendant's motion entirely without merit.
She says the Defendant does not identify any intervening change of
the law, introduce any new evidence, or reveal any clear errors. It
merely rehashes old arguments, quibbles with the Court's
interpretation of New York law. And while the Defendant may be
disappointed with the Court's analysis, a motion for
reconsideration is an improper outlet for its dismay.
The breach of implied warranty claim, thus, survives. The only
question now is whether the Court retains subject matter
jurisdiction over this claim given that all other claims (including
the one federal claim) have been dismissed. The parties have taken
the position, despite the fact that the Amended Complaint had not
previously relied on diversity jurisdiction, that subject matter
jurisdiction still exists based on the Class Action Fairness Act.
Judge Vyskocil agrees. She says this is a case in which at least
one member of the putative class action is diverse from the
defendant; the matter in controversy plausibly exceeds the sum of
$5 million; and the number of members of the proposed class exceeds
100. Therefore, the Court may and does assert jurisdiction over the
breach of implied warranty claim.
The Clerk of Court respectfully is requested to close the Motion at
ECF No. 55.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 19, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y4r3ucce from Leagle.com.
TATTOOED CHEF: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an
investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Tattooed Chef, Inc. (NASDAQ:TTCF) resulting from
allegations that Tattooed Chef may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Tattooed Chef securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9201 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On October 12, 2022, after market hours,
Tattooed Chef announced that it would restate its quarterly and
annual financial statements for 2021, and for its first and second
quarterly financial periods of 2022. Tattooed Chef stated these
financial statements should no longer be relied upon.
Tattooed Chef stated the restatements are because it was notified
earlier this month by its former independent registered public
accounting firm, BDO USA LLP, that "the company incorrectly
recorded expenses related to a multi-vendor mailer program with a
large customer as operating expenses rather than reduction of
revenue, and expenses for advertising placement by a marketing
services firm on a straight-line basis over the life of the
contract rather than when the services were actually rendered."
On this news, Tattooed Chef share prices dropped by $0.44, or
approximately 9.8%, to open on October 13, 2022 at $4.05 per
share.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.[GN]
TDI LLC: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TDI, LLC. The case is
styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. TDI, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00776 (W.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 14, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
TDI LLC -- http://www.tdiholdings.com/-- is the privately owned
umbrella organization for MSP Design Group, Dynamic Team Sports,
and Tactical Distributors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
- and -
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP
122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620
New York, NY 10168
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
TEVA BRANDED: Morrison Proceedings Stayed Pending Transfer Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MELISSA MORRISON, an individual; KELLIE VALENCIA, an
individual; and KARIE KUEHL, an individual, Plaintiffs v. TEVA
BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS R&D, INC., f/k/a Teva Global
Respiratory Research, LLC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; ALZA
CORPORATION; JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LLC f/k/a Johnson &
Johnson Research & Development, LLC; ORTHO-McNEIL PHARMACEUTICAL,
LLC; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. d/k/a Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. f/k/a Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc.; JANSSEN
ORTHO LLC; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; DR. C. LOWELL PARSONS, MD, an
individual; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-1074-GPC-MSB
(S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California grants the Defendants' Motion
to Stay all proceedings pending a ruling by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on transfer to an MDL court.
The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the Superior Court
of California, County of San Diego on June 15, 2022. They allege
that Elmiron, a prescription drug marketed to treat Interstitial
Cystitis and manufactured by some of the named Defendants, caused
them "severe physical and emotional injuries as well as severe
symptoms." They also allege that they were given inadequate
warnings regarding the risk of these injuries.
The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, statutory damages,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs and all other available
remedies and damages allowed by law.
The Defendants removed this action to federal court on July 22,
2022 pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d). On July 22, 2022, they filed a Notice of Related
Cases stating that cases involving "retinal injuries associated
with the use of Elmiron" had been centralized in an MDL proceeding
the District of New Jersey. They stated that on July 25, 2022 they
provided notice to the MDL Panel of this "tag-along" action. The
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") issued a
Conditional Transfer Order, which the Plaintiffs opposed and gave
notice of a Motion to Vacate. The JPML issued a briefing schedule
on the Motion to Vacate and ordered that all briefing be complete
by Sept. 21, 2022.
On Aug. 18, 2022, the Defendants filed this Motion to Stay all
proceedings pending a ruling by the JPML. The Plaintiffs filed an
Opposition on Sept. 30, 2022, and the Defendants filed a Reply on
Oct. 7, 2022. A hearing was set for Oct. 21, 2022.
The Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand on Aug. 19, 2022. A
briefing schedule was provided: any Opposition to the Motion for
Remand is due on Nov. 1, 2022; any Reply is due on Nov. 15, 2022;
and a hearing is currently scheduled for Dec. 2, 2022.
Courts consider three factors in deciding whether to stay
proceedings: (1) any potential prejudice to the non-moving party;
(2) the hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is
not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be saved by
avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are later consolidated
in an MDL.
Judge Curiel finds that these factors weigh in favor of granting a
stay pending the JPML's decision. He says (i) potential prejudice
to the Plaintiffs by granting a stay is limited; (ii) the burden on
the Defendants if this case is not stayed pending the JPML decision
is not tremendous; (iii) granting a motion to stay proceedings
pending a decision by the JPML is a practice courts routinely
follow because of the judicial resources that are saved; and (iv) a
stay will also prevent the possibility that conflicting rulings are
issued by this Court and the transferee court.
In sum, the risk of inconsistent rulings and the judicial resources
that will be conserved outweigh any potential prejudice Plaintiffs
might suffer as a result of a short, not indefinite stay.
Therefore, Judge Curiel grants the Defendants' Motion to Stay.
The hearing on this Motion, scheduled for Oct. 21, 2022, and the
hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, currently scheduled
for Dec. 2, 2022, are vacated.
The Parties are ordered to file a joint status report apprising the
Court of the JPML's decision within 30 days of the JPML's Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/25ffxztf from Leagle.com.
TOV FURNITURE: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TOV Furniture, Inc.
The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. TOV Furniture, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08658 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
TOV Furniture -- https://tovfurniture.com/ -- is an e-commerce
marketplace that offers a diverse selection of handcrafted and
personalized design furniture.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
TP-LINK USA: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TP-Link USA
Corporation. The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. TP-Link USA
Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-08883 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
TP-Link -- https://www.tp-link.com/us/ -- is an industry-leading
provider of wireless networking products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
TRUE VALUE COMPANY: Calvert Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against True Value Company,
L.L.C. The case is styled as Brian Calvert, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. True Value Company,
L.L.C., Case No. 2:22-cv-01461-WSH (W.D. Pa., Oct. 14, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
The True Value Company -- https://www.truevaluecompany.com/ -- is
an American wholesaler with over 4,500 independent retail locations
worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Email: Gary@lcllp.com
TWIN Z COMPANY: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Twin Z Company, Inc.
The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Twin Z Company, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08664 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Twin Z Pillow -- https://twinznursingpillow.com/ -- is a new
twin nursing and feeding pillow for parents of twins.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
U.S. BANK: Court Trims Claims in Pacific Life's Amended Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and PACIFIC LIFE &
ANNUITY COMPANY, Plaintiffs v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION and
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 16 Civ. 555 (PGG)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York enters Memorandum Opinion and
Order explaining the reasons for his decision granting in part and
denying in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint in its entirety.
The action arises from the Plaintiffs' purchase of more than $900
million worth of residential mortgage-backed securities
certificates, for which Defendants U.S. Bank National Association
and Bank of America, N.A. ("BOA") served as trustees.
Residential mortgage-backed securities ("RMBS") are financial
products collateralized by residential mortgages. The depositor
conveys the loan pool to a "trustee," which holds the loan pool in
trust under a "pooling and servicing agreement" ("PSA"). Pursuant
to the PSA for each RMBS trust, a "servicer" is appointed to manage
the collection of payments on the underlying mortgage loans,
monitor delinquent borrowers, foreclose on defaulted loans, monitor
compliance with representations and warranties regarding loan
origination, track mortgage documentation, and manage and sell
foreclosed properties.
The case concerns 32 RMBS trusts created between 2004 and 2007 (the
"Covered Trusts"). Ten of these trusts were sponsored by Washington
Mutual Bank or Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp (the
"WaMu Trusts"). Eight trusts were sponsored by CitiMortgage, Inc.,
Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp., or CSE Mortgage LLC. Five
trusts were sponsored by J.P. Morgan Acquisition Corp. or Chase
Home Finance LLC.5 Two trusts were sponsored by DLJ Mortgage
Capital, Inc. The following entities each sponsored one of the
remaining seven trusts: Bank of America, N.A.; EMC Mortgage Corp.;
Goldman Sachs Mortgage Co. (the "Goldman Trust"); UBS Real Estate
Securities Inc.; Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc. (the "Morgan
Stanley Trust"); Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp.; and Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A.
Pacific Life Insurance Co. is an insurance company incorporated in
Nebraska with its principal place of business in Newport Beach,
California. Pacific Life & Annuity Co. is an insurance company
incorporated in Arizona with its principal place of business in
Newport Beach, California. The Plaintiffs purchased RMBS
certificates issued by the Covered Trusts with an original face
value of approximately $900 million. They sold approximately $400
million worth of the certificates between 2011 and 2014 but kept
the rest.
U.S. Bank is the current trustee for all 32 Covered Trusts. BOA
served as the trustee for 11 of the Covered Trusts -- the 10 WaMu
Trusts and the Morgan Stanley Trust -- from October 2007 to
December 2010, at which point U.S. Bank succeeded BOA as trustee
for those trusts.
The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants breached their trustee
duties under the PSAs in several ways. They allege that (i) even
before any Event of Default had occurred, the Defendants breached
their duties under the PSAs by not providing adequate notice "when
Sponsors or Originators breached representation and warranty
provisions" in the PSAs; (ii) the Defendants violated their
pre-Event of Default duties under the PSAs by not remedying defects
in the mortgage files in their possession; (iii) the Defendants
have repeatedly breached their duty to prudently exercise available
remedies after Events of Default throughout the life of the Covered
Trusts; (iv) the Defendants made materially false statements in
Form 10-K certifications and remittance reports provided to
certificate holders pursuant to Regulation AB; (v) the Defendants
actions generally deprived them of the fruits of their contracts in
violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing;
and (vi) the Defendants had numerous conflicts of interest that
violated their duties as RMBS trustees.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged breaches of their trustee
duties, the Plaintiffs claim that they have suffered over $150
million in damages. They contend that, if Defendants had, inter
alia, required Sponsors and Originators to repurchase defective
loans that were contained in the Covered Trusts: (1) the RMBS
certificates still in their possession would have retained their
market value; and (2) as to the certificates the Plaintiffs have
sold, they would have been able to sell those certificates at a
higher price.
The Plaintiffs filed the action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, but the case was later transferred to
this District in the interest of convenience and fairness.
Thereafter, they filed an Amended Complaint, which asserts seven
claims against the Defendants.
In their first claim, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
violated the TIA by not investigating and notifying them of
"defaults" related to the Covered Trusts, by not prudently
exercising their powers as trustees following those defaults, and
by impairing the ability of the trusts, and consequently them, to
receive payment in connection with defective mortgage loans.
In their second claim, the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants
breached their obligations under the PSAs and, in doing so, harmed
them, who are "intended third party beneficiaries under the PSAs.
In their third, fourth, and fifth claims, they assert that the
Defendants committed tortious conduct in connection with their
oversight of the Covered Trusts. In their sixth claim, they assert
that the Defendants violated New York's Streit Act. Finally, they
allege that, by engaging in the conduct described in the rest of
the Amended Complaint, the Defendants breached their duty of good
faith and fair dealing under the PSAs.
U.S. Bank and BOA moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and in a
previous order, Judge Gardephe granted in part and denied in part
their motions. The purpose of his memorandum opinion and order is
to explain his reasoning.
Judge Gardephe dismisses as untimely (i) the Plaintiffs' breach of
contract claims against U.S. Bank with respect to JPALT 2006-S2;
(ii) their claims against BOA with respect to the Morgan Stanley
Trust; and (iii) all of their claims against BOA with respect to
WMALT 2007-4.
Judge Gardephe dismisses the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims
against (i) U.S. Bank to the extent they are based on an alleged
failure to provide notice of representation and warranty breaches
related to JPALT 2006-S2, JPALT 2006-S4, and JPMMT 2007-A4; (ii)
both Defendants to the extent they are based on their failure to
enforce repurchase rights prior to an Event of Default for the WaMu
Trusts; (iii) both Defendants to the extent that they are based on
their failure to enforce repurchase rights prior to an Event of
Default for the nine trusts identified in Dkt. No. 128-18; (iv)
both Defendants to the extent they are based on a duty to take
physical possession of mortgage files; (v) U.S. Bank to the extent
they are based on U.S. Bank's failure to review mortgage files and
prepare exception reports related to the 15 trusts identified in
Dkt. Nos. 128-20 and 128-21.
Judge Gardephe also dismisses the Plaintiffs' breach of contract
claims against (i) both Defendants to the extent they are based on
a duty to enforce repurchase rights for loans with defective
documentation held in the 21 trusts identified in Dkt. No. 128-23;
(ii) both Defendants to the extent they are based on their failure
to provide notice of pre-Event of Default servicer and master
servicer breaches related to the 22 trusts listed in Dkt. No.
128-26; and (iv) both Defendants are dismissed to the extent they
are based on alleged violations of Regulation AB -- except for
those claims related to BAFC 2007-D, ARMT 2005-10, CSFB 2004-8, and
MSM 2006-7 that are not premised on the preparation of remittance
reports.
Judge Gardephe further dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims against
both Defendants (i) for breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing; (ii) brought under TTA Section 316(b); and
(iii) brought under Section 126(1) of the Streit Act. He dismisses
the Plaintiffs' tort claims against both Defendants to the extent
that they are not premised on the Defendants' extra-contractual
duties of performing ministerial acts with due care and avoiding
conflicts of interest.
In all other respects, Judge Gardephe denies the Defendants'
motions to dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 19, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc8kkppr from
Leagle.com.
UNIVERSITY OF TAMPA: Court Enters Final Judgment in D'Amario Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JADE D'AMARIO and JOSHUA DUNN, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE UNIVERSITY OF
TAMPA, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-03744-CS (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Cathy
Seibel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York enters Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice.
Plaintiffs D'Amario and Dunn and the Defendant have entered into a
Class Action Settlement Agreement, which sets forth the terms and
conditions for a proposed settlement and dismissal of the Action
with prejudice as to the Defendant upon the terms and conditions
set forth therein.
On June 3, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, conditionally
certifying a Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) of "all
students and former students who paid, or on whose behalf payment
was made, tuition and fees for educational services to Defendant
for the Spring 2020 Semester, and who remained enrolled as of March
1, 2020."
Judge Seibel has considered the Parties' Class Action Settlement
Agreement, as well as the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Costs, Expenses, And Incentive Awards, together with all exhibits
thereto, the arguments and authorities presented by the Parties and
their counsel at the Final Approval Hearing held on Oct. 18, 2022,
and the record in the Action.
Judge Seibel finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement
Class. Accordingly, the Settlement is finally approved in all
respects.
The Parties are directed to implement the Settlement Agreement
according to its terms and provisions. The Settlement Agreement is
incorporated into the Final Judgment in full and will have the full
force of an Order of the Court.
Judge Seibel dismisses the Action, as identified in the Settlement
Agreement, on the merits and with prejudice. She adjudges that the
payment of attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $1,133,333.33
is reasonable in light of the multi-factor test used to evaluate
fee awards in the Second Circuit. This award includes the Class
Counsel's unreimbursed litigation costs and expenses. Such payment
will be made pursuant to and in the manner provided by the terms of
the Settlement Agreement.
Judge Seibel also adjudges that the payment of incentive awards in
the amount of $10,000 each to Ms. D'Amario and Mr. Dunn to
compensate them for their efforts and commitment on behalf of the
Settlement Class is fair, reasonable, and justified under the
circumstances of the case. Such payment will be made pursuant to
and in the manner provided by the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.
All payments made to Settlement Class Members pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement that are not cashed within 90 days of issuance
will revert to the Defendant for the direct benefit of the students
of The University of Tampa through the creation of a special
student-focused scholarship fund administered by The University of
Tampa. Except as otherwise set forth in the Order, the Parties will
bear their own costs and attorneys' fees.
Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment for purposes
of appeal, until the Effective Date the Court will retain
jurisdiction over all matters relating to administration,
consummation, enforcement, and interpretation of the Settlement
Agreement.
Judge Seibel directs entry of the Final Judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 based upon the Court's finding
that there is no just reason for delay of enforcement or appeal of
the Final Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Final Judgment &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8c394u from
Leagle.com.
USAA GENERAL: Court Dismisses Epstein Class Suit With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC EPSTEIN, Plaintiff v. USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY
COMPANY and UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Defendants,
Case No. C22-684 MJP (W.D. Wash.), Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle, grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike
Portions of Class Action Complaint and Request for Judicial
Notice.
Mr. Epstein has filed suit individually and on behalf of a proposed
class against his former auto insurer, Defendants USAA General
Indemnity Co. (GIC) and its parent company, United Services
Automobile Association (USAA). He claims that the Defendants have
violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) and the
Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA) by forcing lower-ranking
servicemembers to pay more for auto insurance than higher-ranking
servicemembers.
The Defendants move to dismiss all of the claims and to strike the
request for equitable relief. They have also filed an unopposed
Request for Judicial Notice that asks the Court to take judicial
notice of a "U.S. Military Rank Insignia" page from the Department
of Defense's website. The Court takes judicial notice of the page,
though it does not affect the outcome of the Motion.
USAA offers auto insurance to current and former servicemembers of
the United States military. It writes auto insurance through four
different insurers that operate under common management and
control" which Epstein calls the "USAA Group." Two of the related
insurers relevant to this action are: (1) USAA, and (2) GIC.
USAA insures commissioned officers as well as senior
non-commissioned officers in pay grades E-7 or higher along with
veterans whose highest pay grade was E-7 or higher. And GIC insures
enlisted personnel in pay grades E-6 or below along with veterans
whose highest pay grade was E-6 or below. The Complaint refers to
enlisted personnel at pay grades E-7 or higher as "Officers
Policyholders" and those in pay grades E-1 through E-6 as "Enlisted
Policyholders."
As a former enlisted member of the Navy at a pay grade of E-1,
Epstein qualified to obtain auto insurance from USAA Group. He
obtained insurance through GIC from August 2020 to April 2022. He
alleges that he would have paid roughly 20% less in premiums had he
been insured through USAA and not GIC.
Mr. Epstein pursues three claims: (1) violations of the WLAD on the
basis of his "military status"; (2) violations of the CPA for
engaging in "unfair" discrimination by charging higher premiums
based on pay grade; and (3) violations of the CPA by failing to
disclose to lower pay-grade servicemembers that they will be
insured by GIC and that they will pay higher premiums than higher
pay-grade servicemembers.
Mr. Epstein seeks: (1) declaratory relief; (2) injunctive relief
including but not limited to an order (i) requiring Defendants to
use base rates and relativities that generate premiums that do not
discriminate against Enlisted Policyholders and/or (ii) otherwise
preventing the Defendants from continuing to charge
discriminatorily high premium rates to Enlisted Policyholders; (3)
disgorgement, restitution, or imposition of a constructive trust
upon the ill-gotten gains derived by Defendants; (4) damages, which
are at least equal to the amounts that they paid in excess of the
amounts that Defendants charged to similarly situated Officer
Policyholders; (5) treble damages under the CPA; and (6) attorneys'
fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other
further relief the Court deems just.
The Defendants move to dismiss all three of Epstein's claims on the
theory that they are barred by the filed rate doctrine.
Having considered the Complaint and the relief it seeks, Judge
Pechman finds that Epstein's CPA and WLAD claims directly attack
the reasonableness of OIC-approved rates and are barred by the
filed rate doctrine. She is not convinced by the AG's letter or any
additional arguments Epstein advances that there exists a carve-out
to the filed rate doctrine for WLAD claims. Epstein also fails to
cite any cases that have permitted WLAD claims to proceed that
would otherwise be barred by the filed rate doctrine. Lastly, she
is therefore unconvinced that she should hold off on her
determination that the filed rate doctrine bars the claims.
Judge Pechman, therefore, grants the Motion to Dismiss and
dismisses the action with prejudice. She does not reach the
Defendants' alternative arguments in support of dismissal or
striking the equitable relief sought, as doing so is unnecessary to
resolving the Motion to Dismiss.
The Clerk is ordered to provide copies of the Order to all
counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 19, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycx7zf4x from Leagle.com.
VERVE LABS: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Verve Labs, Inc. The
case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Verve
Labs, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06173 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Verve Labs is a U.A.E.-based design studio that provides solutions
for print and media.[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
VINNIE'S AUTO COLLISION: Guerrero Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro J. Guerrero, Victor H. Sosa, and other similarly situated
individuals v. Vinnie's Auto Collision Center, Inc., and Vincent
Terdoslavich, individually, Case No. 8:22-cv-02351-SDM-MRM (M.D.
Fla., Oct. 13, 2022), is brought to recover money damages for
unpaid half-time overtime under the United States laws, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were paid for an average of 72 hours weekly but at
their regular rate. The Plaintiffs were not paid for overtime
hours. The Plaintiffs did not clock in and out, but the Defendants
could keep track of the hours worked by the Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated individuals. The Plaintiffs worked under the
supervision of the business owner, Vincent Terdoslavich. Therefore,
the Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiffs overtime
hours at the rate of time and one half their regular rate for every
hour they worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as a collision
repair technicians.
Vinnie's Collision Center is an auto repair body center located in
Sarasota, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
VIVIANO CONSULTING: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Viviano Consulting
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Tonimarie Rhone, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Viviano Consulting
Services, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08665 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Viviano Consulting LLC is a real estate company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Dismissal of Riley's Song-Beverly Claims Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the
district court's order granting summary judgment dismissing the
Appellants' Song-Beverly Act claims in the lawsuits styled TIMOTHY
G. RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation;
VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees. LUKE G. SANWICK; KATHRYN
SANWICK, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA,
INC., DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation;
VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees. RICHARD V. ORTIZ; VIRGINIA
TORRES ORTIZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA,
INC., DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation;
VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees. JULIA ROBERTSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., DBA
Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; VOLKSWAGEN
AG, Defendants-Appellees. BYRON CLENDENEN, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc.,
a New Jersey corporation; VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees.
SCOTT SALZER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA,
INC., DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation;
VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees. KENNETH J. COON; MARIA E.
COON, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation;
VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. 20-15882, 20-15884,
20-15885, 20-15886, 20-15887, 20-15889, 20-15890 (9th Cir.).
These appeals arise from nationwide litigation related to emissions
defeat devices installed in certain Volkswagen and Audi vehicles.
The Appellants bought or leased these vehicles and opted out of
related class action litigation to assert their claims
individually. They appeal the district court's determination that
they did not qualify for relief under the Song-Beverly Claims Act
because the cars were "merchantable." They also contest the
district court's rulings during and after the trial rejecting their
California Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") claims. They further
challenge certain evidentiary rulings made by the district court.
The Appellants finally challenge the district court judge's
decision not to recuse himself.
The district court granted summary judgment dismissing the
Appellants' Song-Beverly Act claims, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1790
et seq., because the cars were merchantable and did not qualify for
relief under the statute.
The Ninth Circuit agrees. It has previously held that the affected
cars "were still functional and safe to drive." Likewise in the
present case, the district court properly granted summary judgment
because the Appellants did not raise a genuine issue of material
fact that the vehicles with the emissions defeat devices were not
fit for providing transportation.
The district court dismissed the Appellants' CLRA damages claims
because it concluded that Volkswagen's offer for Appellants to
rejoin the class action settlement was an "appropriate correction."
The Appellants argue that this was error.
The Ninth Circuit agrees. Volkswagen gave a class settlement offer
that, inter alia, required the Appellants to waive all claims, not
just those arising under the CLRA. The Ninth Circuit concludes that
Volkswagen's correction offer was not "appropriate" because it
barred the Appellants' ability to bring their other claims arising
outside of the CLRA.
The Appellants contend that the district court abused its
discretion by permitting and excluding certain evidence on damages
based on the finding that there was a market value for the cars
after the emissions defeat devices were discovered. They contend
that this testimony showed that they were entitled to the full
value of their vehicles at their time of purchase.
The Ninth Circuit disagrees. It holds that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in barring evidence that it was illegal to
sell the vehicles at issue, nor in concluding that the vehicles
with emissions defeat devices still had unmistakable market value.
Indeed, Riley sold his vehicle for $10,000 in 2016 after the
discovery of the emissions defeat device. Further, the trial court
did not abuse its discretion by limiting the Appellants' testimony
regarding their own, subjective value of the cars.
The Appellants then assert that the district court erred by
excluding jury instructions on reliance damages under California
Civil Instructions No. 1923.
The Ninth Circuit reviews the district court's formulation of jury
instructions for abuse of discretion and review de novo whether the
instructions accurately state the law. Because the Appellants did
not provide a sufficient factual predicate to warrant giving an
instruction on the theory of reliance damages, it finds that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the jury
instructions. The Appellants also did not show that a reliance upon
Volkswagen's fraud caused additional damages beyond the
compensatory damages determined by the district court. The evidence
and proceedings showed no differences in the costs incurred from
owning a normal car as compared to owning a vehicle with the
emissions defeat device.
The Appellants also argue that they would have acted differently if
they had known that the defeat devices were present. But they did
not show any quantifiable damages incurred in reliance on the
affected vehicles. Because the Appellants did not show that they
incurred reliance damages, the Ninth Circuit holds that the
district court did not err in not instructing on reliance damages.
The Appellants further contend that that the district court judge,
Judge Breyer, should have recused himself because his opinions on
the issues in this case were formed in the separate, yet related,
class action proceedings held in multidistrict litigation.
The Ninth Circuit rejects their claim, which it determine is
entirely without merit. The knowledge Judge Breyer developed in the
related Volkswagen litigation was gained through proper juristic
proceedings. That does not require recusal. Further, the district
judge's comments on the record show no predisposition toward one
side or another in the case. Finally, to the extent that the
Appellants argue recusal was required because of Judge Breyer's
adverse rulings, "judicial rulings alone almost never constitute
valid basis for a bias or partiality recusal motion," and do not do
so in the case.
Lastly, Judge Breyer did not abuse his discretion in declining to
refer the case because the affidavit was insufficient, and it was
not timely filed. The Ninth Circuit rejects in full the contentions
that Judge Breyer should have recused.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4r73zr86 from Leagle.com.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Punitive Damages Calculations in Riley Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacates the
district court's punitive damages calculations in the cases titled
TIMOTHY G. RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
AMERICA, INC., DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey
corporation; VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees. LUKE G. SANWICK;
KATHRYN SANWICK, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
AMERICA, INC., DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey
corporation; VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees. RICHARD V. ORTIZ;
VIRGINIA TORRES ORTIZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
AMERICA, INC., DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey
corporation; VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees. JULIA ROBERTSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., DBA
Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; VOLKSWAGEN
AG, Defendants-Appellees. BYRON CLENDENEN, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc.,
a New Jersey corporation; VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees.
SCOTT SALZER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA,
INC., DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation;
VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees. KENNETH J. COON; MARIA E.
COON, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
DBA Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation;
VOLKSWAGEN AG, Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. 20-15882, 20-15884,
20-15885, 20-15886, 20-15887, 20-15889, 20-15890 (9th Cir.).
These appeals stem from the nationwide Volkswagen litigation
related to the emissions defeat devices installed in certain
Volkswagen and Audi vehicles. The Appellants are plaintiffs who
opted-out of the class action, preferring to pursue their claims
individually ("opt-out Plaintiffs"). After a three-phase trial, the
district court awarded the Appellants damages, but reduced the
award of punitive damages to conform with constitutional standards
established by the United States Supreme Court for punitive damages
awards. The Appellants challenge the district court's punitive
damages calculations.
In 2015, researchers discovered that Volkswagen had installed
emissions defeat devices in some of its vehicles. The vehicles with
the defeat devices produced emissions up to 40 times the maximum
permitted by the legal standard, except that the emissions were
diminished when the vehicles were undergoing emissions testing.
The district court found that there was no evidence at trial that
the Plaintiffs suffered any personal injury resulting from the
defeat devices in their cars, nor did they bring a personal injury
claim. In a press release in 2019, the EPA said that the increased
emissions did not present a safety hazard to those who owned and
operated the affected vehicles.
After the discovery of the defeat devices, the owners of affected
cars filed thousands of lawsuits. These individual suits were sent
to multi-district litigation, where the Plaintiffs received the
option of opting-in to a class settlement based on the type of
affected vehicle that they owned. The cases of the Plaintiffs who
opted-in were consolidated into two classes for settlement, one for
2.0 liter vehicle owners and another for 3.0 liter vehicle owners.
Appellants Timothy Riley, Luke and Kathryn Sanwick, Richard and
Virginia Ortiz, Julia Robertson, Byron Clendenen, Scott Salzer, and
Kenneth and Maria Coon, are individuals who bought or leased a
vehicle with an emissions defeat device and opted-out of the class
action settlements. They filed individual suits that were
consolidated before the same judge who presided over the
multidistrict litigation and class action settlements.
The jury awarded four of the appellants various amounts in
compensatory damages and $25,000 each in punitive damages. In a
conscientious effort to comply with due process, the district court
reduced the punitive damages award to exactly four times the amount
of the compensatory damages suffered by each Plaintiff.
The Appellants argue that the district court erred by holding that
a punitive damages ratio calculation of four times the value of the
compensatory damages award is the maximum punitive damages award
permitted by the Constitution's Due Process Clause.
The Ninth Circuit agrees there was error in determining this limit.
It reviews the application of applicable constitutional guidelines
de novo, citing State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538
U.S. 408, 425 (2003). The Supreme Court in BMW of North America,
Inc. v. Gore established three guidelines governing whether
punitive damage awards comply with due process: (1) the
reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct; (2) the disparity
between the harm or potential harm suffered by the claimant and his
punitive damages; and (3) the difference between the punitive
damages and any civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable
cases.
On the factor of reprehensibility, the Ninth Circuit finds this is
a paradigm case where high reprehensibility coupled with relatively
low compensatory damages can support a higher multiplier for
punitive damages consistent with due process. Turning to the
proportionality issue, it applies to all the Appellants the lowest
ratio selected by the jury -- an 8 to 1 ratio -- in determining the
maximum punitive damages permitted. For the third guidepost, the
Ninth Circuit holds this factor does not require it to reduce the
single digit multiplier punitive damages determined by the jury.
Because it holds that the district court erred in applying the Gore
factors, the Ninth Circuit now considers what award of punitive
damages comports with due process for each party. It concludes that
the jury's multiple of eight times the actual compensatory damages
award is constitutionally permissible because a multiplier greater
than four is appropriate. It also concludes that it would be
arbitrary and incorrect to set a different ratio between punitive
damages and actual compensatory damages as to each of the
Plaintiffs under the circumstances.
In light of the foregoing, the Ninth Circuit, therefore, vacates
and remands the punitive damages awards to each Appellant with
instructions that the district court recalculates punitive damages
in an amount equal to eight times the actual compensatory damages
determination.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 18, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5n8c2dmt from Leagle.com.
Jeffrey B. Gurrola -- jgurrola@gmsr.com -- (argued), Cynthia E.
Tobisman -- ctobisman@gmsr.com -- and Joseph V. Bui --
jbui@gmsr.com; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP, Los Angeles,
California; Bryan C. Altman, Altman Law Group, Los Angeles,
California; Steve B. Mikhov, Knight Law Group LLP, Los Angeles,
California; Scot D. Wilson -- Info@KnightLaw.com -- Call & Jensen
APC, Newport Beach, California; Robert S. Peck --
robert.peck@cclfirm.com -- Center of Constitutional Litigation,
Washington, D.C.; Hallen D. Rosner and Arlyn L. Escalante --
arlyn@rbblawgroup.com; Rosner, Barry & Babbitt LLP, San Diego,
California, for the Plaintiff-Appellant.
Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- (argued), Sharon
L. Nelles -- nelless@sullcrom.com -- William B. Monahan --
monahanw@sullcrom.com -- Suhana Han -- hans@sullcrom.com --
Elizabeth N. Olsen -- olsene@sullcrom.com -- and William H. Wagener
-- wagenerw@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, New
York; Sverker K. Hogberg -- hogbergs@sullcrom.com -- and Laura K.
Oswell -- oswelll@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Palo
Alto, California; Michael Steinberg -- steinbergm@sullcrom.com --
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Los Angeles, California, for the
Defendants-Appellees.
WALGREEN PHARMACY: Gamarro Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Anita Gamarro, an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Walgreen Pharmacy Services
Midwest, LLC, Walgreen Co., Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
CVRI22033 was removed from the Riverside County Superior Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
Oct. 13, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-01811-MEMF-SP to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt. Relations.
Walgreens -- https://www.walgreens.com/ -- is a go-to for pharmacy,
health & wellness and photo products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Wallin, Esq.
David D Bibiyan, Esq.
Jeffrey D Klein, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC
8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: alex@tomorrowlaw.com
david@tomorrowlaw.com
jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq.
Karina Lo, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER
1920 Main Street Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: (949) 223-7000
Fax: (949) 223-7100
Email: allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com
karina.lo@bclplaw.com
- and -
Daria Dub Carlson, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
120 Broadway Suite 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
Phone: (310) 576-2100
Fax: (310) 576-2200
Email: daria.carlson@bclplaw.com
XELERO TECHNOLOGY: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Xelero Technology,
LLC. The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of herself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Xelero Technology, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-08927 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Xelero -- https://xeleroshoes.com/ -- is a pioneer in comfort and
wellness footwear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
YUMMERS PET SUPPLY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yummers Pet Supply
Corporation. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Yummers Pet Supply Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-08694 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 13, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Yummers Pet Supply -- https://yummerspets.com/ -- is a pet products
company..[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
*********
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 ***