/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221109.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, November 9, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 218 Headlines 1ST ADVANTAGE: Faces Sonza Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices 476 K LLC: Koska FLSA Suit Removed to D. Columbia ADVOCATE AURORA: Stewart Sues Over Privacy Right Violations ALPACA DIRECT: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Fujishige Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Mermelstein Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ATG CREDIT: Wrightsell Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois AUTHENTIC BRANDS: Weeks Sues Over False and Misleading Marketing BALLARD DESIGNS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BP EXPLORATION: Bids to Exclude Cook Testimony in Booth Suit OK'd BREY CORP: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BRISTOL FARMS: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Schwenk Suit Affirmed BROOKSIDE, AL: Bid for Summary Judgment in Coleman v. Police Denied C.R. ENGLAND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sapiega Suit Alleges CABELA'S INC: Montecalvo Files Suit in D. Massachusetts CAMILLE BECKMAN: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CIOX HEALTH: Fourth Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Thompson Class Suit CITIC CAPITAL: Tang RICO Class Suit Moved From D.N.J. to D. Del. CITIC CAPITAL: Tang Suit Transferred to D. Delaware CLOROX COMPANY: Scandore Files Suit in E.D. New York COMICLINK SERVICES: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CONAGRA BRANDS: Jackson Sues Over Popcorn's False "Naturals" Label DOBRIN GROUP: Sweeney Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages DUTCHMAN HOSPITALITY: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ECHO TECH: Underpays Cardiac Sonographers, Lopez FLSA Suit Claims ELITE COMICS11: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ELITE FLAGGING: Doke FLSA Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Flaggers EQUIFAX INC: Settles Consumer Suits Over Data Breach EVERLAST WORLDWIDE: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FU TAI INC: Ramales Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Varela Suit Removed to C.D. California GIANT OF MARYLAND: Faces Kibec Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Maryland GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Kenan Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages GOLDEN APPLE: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GOODYEAR TIRE: Perkins Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania HARD ROCK: Improperly Pays Restaurant Staff, Carpenter Suit Says INTERO REAL ESTATE: Class Deal in Chinitz TCPA Suit Gets Final Nod JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, City of Morganfield Says JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Hazleton Area Says JUUL LABS: Faces Mid Valley Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Ads JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Wilkes-Barre Claims JUUL LABS: Tunkhannock Area Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing JUUL LABS: Wyoming Valley Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction KEYBANK NATIONAL: Pittman Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania LA FERMIERE: Manier Sues Over Misrepresentation on Labels LOCUST MEDICAL: Court Denies Bid to Strike Jackson's Class Claims LONE STAR COMICS: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MARIA PABLITO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rossis Suit Alleges MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Wray Suit MESA AIR: Class Settlement in Lowthorp Suit Has Prelim. Approval META PLATFORMS: Sijelmassi Sues Over Intercepted Browsing Activity META PLATFORMS: V.P. Suit Removed to N.D. California MIDTRONICS INC: Sued Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data MNS LTD: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MONDELEZ INT'L: Claims in Lee Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice MOTORSPORT.TV DIGITAL: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NAVY FEDERAL: Anderson Suit Removed From State Court to E.D. Cal. NCB MANAGEMENT: Keeton Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama NEW YORK, NY: Aguilo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NEWREZ LLC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Cardin Class Suit Partly Granted OCEAN CREST SEAFOODS: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York OSCEOLA CHEESE: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PASHA GROUP: Arreguin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PAULA DEEN VENTURES: Ligon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PHYSICIAN'S BUSINESS: Martin Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia R&G BRENNER: Lurie Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation RA SUSHI: Faces Canada Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages for Servers REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Jones Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York REASONABLE HEALTH: Alexander Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Wilson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RESURGENT CAPITAL: Castic Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Illinois RESURGENT CAPITAL: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in D. South Carolina ROADMASTER DRIVERS: Meehan Sues Over Engagement in Deceptive Scheme ROCKET MORTGAGE: Class Certification Decision in Alig Suit Vacated SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Claims in Wesley Defective Ranges Suit Trimmed SHORTBOXED LLC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SIX FLAGS: Mack Files Suit in D. New Jersey STARRY GROUP: Kinard Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice STATE FARM: M.D. Georgia Dismisses Cudd Suit Without Prejudice SWANK AUGUSTA: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York T. ROWE PRICE: Sued Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Voice Prints TENNESSEE VALLEY: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York THIRD EYE COMICS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York THREE SISTER'S: Fails to Properly Pay Dancers, King Suit Alleges THRIVING BRANDS: Soldevilla Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut TOMMY HILFIGER: Wiretaps Electronic Communications, Licea Claims TRAVEL GUARD: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert Bid Schedule TRINET HR: Huang, et al., Win Class Certification Bid TRUE NORTH: Mullins Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages UNITED STATES: Bid to Amend Judgment in Tanner-Brown Suit Denied UNITED STATES: Walker's First Amended Suit Dismissed With Prejudice VILLAGE SUPER MARKET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mendez Alleges WEDRIVEU INC: Bids for Judgment on Pleadings in Chatman Suit Okayed ********* 1ST ADVANTAGE: Faces Sonza Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE SONZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1ST ADVANTAGE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00114 (E.D. Va., Oct. 28, 2022) is an action against the Defendant's unlawful business practices of assessing multiple $30 fees on an item. According to the complaint, besides being deceptive, the Defendant's practice breaches promises made in the Defendant's adhesion contract. The Plaintiff and other customers of the Defendant have been injured by the Defendant's improper fee maximization practice. The Defendant's improper scheme to extract funds from account holders has victimized the Plaintiff and hundreds of other similarly situated consumers. Unless enjoined, the Defendant will continue to engage in these schemes and will continue to cause substantial injury to its consumers, says the suit. 1ST ADVANTAGE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION FOUNDATION operates as a financial cooperative. The Union provides financial solutions such as loans, investment, savings, credit and debit cards, online banking, and other related services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Devon J. Munro, Esq. MUNRO BYRD, P.C. 120 Day Ave. SW, First Floor Roanoke, VA 24016 Telephone: (540) 283-9343 Facsimile: (540) 328-9290 Email: dmunro@trialsva.com -and - Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 950 Gilman Street, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielgold.com -and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 280-4783 Email: jkaliel@kalielgold.com -and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Tyler B. Ewiglebenm Esq. JOHNSON FIRM 610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300 Little Rock, AK 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-1300 Email: chris@yourattorney.com tyler@yourattorney.com 476 K LLC: Koska FLSA Suit Removed to D. Columbia ------------------------------------------------- The case styled MARKO KOSKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 476 K, LLC dba CLOAKROOM; ANTONIOS CAVASILIOS; CARLOS HORCASITAS; and MAYMAY HORCASITAS, Case No. C-15-CV-22-003204, was removed from the District of Columbia Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on October 21, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the District of Columbia assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-03232 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the D.C. Minimum Wage Revision Act. 476 K, LLC, doing business as Cloakroom, is an adult entertainment facility owner and operator, headquartered in Washington, D.C. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan Rosen, Esq. RIMON, PC 1990 K Street NW, Suite 420 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (240) 618-3432 E-mail: jonathan.rosen@rimonlaw.com - and - Robert A. Cocchia, Esq. RIMON, PC 2029 Century Park East, Suite 400N Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 314-2938 E-mail: robert.cocchia@rimonlaw.com ADVOCATE AURORA: Stewart Sues Over Privacy Right Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- ALISTAIR STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. ADVOCATE AURORA HEALTH, INC.; and META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05964 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2022) alleges violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's privacy rights by knowingly and repeatedly intercepting, accessing, and disclosing the personally identifiable, sensitive and confidential statutorily-protected patient health information of Advocate's patients without their knowledge, authorization, or consent. Advocate discloses its patients' personally identifiable patient information and PHI to Facebook together in a single transmission. This transmission occurs even though patients have not shared, nor consented to share, such information. As a consequence of Advocate and Facebook's conduct in knowingly and repeatedly intercepting, accessing, and disclosing personally identifiable patient information and PHI without patient knowledge, consent, or authorization, says the suit. ADVOCATE AURORA HEALTH, INC. provides health care services. The Company offers gynecological, dental, pediatric, adult, and geriatric care, as well as nutrition, health education, and intervention programs, and family planning. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Teresa M. Becvar, Esq. Mohammed A. Rathur, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 f Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com tbecvar@stephanzouras.com mrathur@stephanzouras.com ALPACA DIRECT: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpaca Direct, LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Alpaca Direct, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09168 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Alpaca Direct -- https://www.alpacadirect.com/ -- offers a huge selection of crochet and knitting yarns including Alpaca, Merino wool and cotton.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Fujishige Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled AMY FUJISHIGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22CV403296, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on October 21, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-06397 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's sex discrimination and failure to prevent sex discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act and unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code. Amazon.com Services LLC is an electronic commerce company headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Brian D. Berry, Esq. Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: brian.berry@morganlewis.com sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Mermelstein Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Associated Credit Services, Inc. The case is styled as Mordechai Mermelstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Associated Credit Services, Inc., Case No. 7:22-cv-09190 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Associated Credit Service, Inc. -- https://www.acscoll.com/ -- is a collection agency based in Spokane, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Thomas Yusko, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com ATG CREDIT: Wrightsell Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ATG Credit, LLC. The case is styled as Nicole Wrightsell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jefferson ATG Credit, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05911 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 26, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. ATG Credit LLC -- https://atgcredit.com/ -- operates as an accounts receivable management firm.[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 AUTHENTIC BRANDS: Weeks Sues Over False and Misleading Marketing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robin Weeks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Authentic Brands Group Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09223-AT (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022), is brought seeking damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading marketing practices with regard to its white Fitted Non-Iron Stretch Supima Cotton Dress Shirts under the Brooks Brothers brand ("Product"). The neck and interior tags identify the Product as "97% Supima Cotton" and "3% Lycra Spandex." On the Product's listing webpage, there is a statement which emphasizes the Defendant's use of American-grown Supima cotton for these very benefits. Consumers value products made from Supima cotton because they are softer and more durable than products made from non-Supima cotton. Supima cotton is a type of extra-long staple ("ELS") cotton with a range of 1.2 inches to 1.56 inches. The botanical name for Supima cotton is Gossypium barbadense, and its average fiber length is 1.41 inches. While it is generally grown in the United States, reports state that less than 1% of the cotton grown worldwide and less than 3% of the cotton grown in the U.S. is Supima. The American Society for Testing and Materials ("ASTM") developed the Single-Fiber Test to determine fiber lengths in finished cotton products such as sheets and clothing The Single-Fiber Test was applied on the Product. The results revealed that (1) 70% of the fibers were shorter than 1.200 inches (30.48 mm), the low end of the range for Supima cotton, and (2) 49% of the fibers were shorter than 1.080 inches (27.432 mm). Since Plaintiff's Product was new and unused, there could not have been shortening of the fiber lengths due to wear. Since Plaintiff's Product had not been worn or washed, the length of the fibers did not shrink. Assuming the worst-case scenario of fiber shortening such that only 52% (or only 50.44%) of the fibers qualified as Supima cotton, this is still significantly less than advertised, as the Product purports to be 97% Supima cotton (and 3% Lycra spandex). The TexTest Report supports the strong inference that the cotton used in the Product is not only Supima cotton but contains a significant amount of less expensive shorter cotton fibers and cotton byproduct fibers. The failure to disclose the presence of less Supima cotton than advertised is contrary to the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and its regulations. The Defendant makes other representations and omissions with respect to the Product which are false and misleading. Reasonable consumers must and do rely on a company to honestly and lawfully market and describe the quality and composition of a product, relative to itself and other comparable products or alternatives. The value of the Product that Plaintiff purchased was materially less than its value as represented by Defendant. Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers. Had Plaintiff known the truth, she would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $118.00, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, says the complaint. The Plaintiff bought the Product on one or more occasions. Authentic Brands Group Inc. manufactures, markets and sells white Fitted Non-Iron Stretch Supima Cotton Dress Shirts under the Brooks Brothers brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Phone: (516) 268-7080 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com BALLARD DESIGNS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ballard Designs, Inc. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ballard Designs, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09225 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ballard Designs -- https://www.ballarddesigns.com/ -- is an omnichannel retail company that designs and sells home furniture and accessories with a European influence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com BP EXPLORATION: Bids to Exclude Cook Testimony in Booth Suit OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHIANTI LASHON BOOTH v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., Section: H, Civil Action No. 17-3053, No. C/W 17-4608 (E.D. La.), Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants the Motions in Limine to Exclude the General Causation Opinions of Plaintiffs' Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook and the Motions for Summary Judgment Due to Plaintiffs' Inability to Prove Medical Causation. The Motions are filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc.; BP America Production Co.; BP p.l.c.; Transocean Holdings, LLC; Transocean Deepwater, Inc.; Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.; and Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. The consolidated action is one among the "B3 bundle" of cases arising out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This bundle comprises "claims for personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g., dispersant)." These cases were originally part of a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana before Judge Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement, but the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement or were excluded from its class definition. Subsequently, Judge Barbier severed the B3 cases from the MDL to be reallocated among the judges of this Court. This case was reassigned to Section H. Plaintiffs Chianti Booth and Carlos Thomas each allege continuous exposure to oil and dispersants while working to clean-up the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. They each claim to suffer from a host of medical conditions because of the exposure. They assert claims under the general maritime law of negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence with respect to the spill and its clean-up. Now before the Court are the Defendants' Motions in Limine and their Motions for Summary Judgment. In the Motions in Limine, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' expert on medical causation, Dr. Cook, fails to satisfy the Fifth Circuit's requirements for an admissible general causation opinion in toxic tort cases and should therefore be excluded as unreliable. In the Motions for Summary Judgment, they argue that assuming their Motions in Limine are granted, Pthe laintiffs lack expert testimony on general causation and therefore fail to present a genuine issue of material fact as to whether their injuries were caused by exposure to oil and dispersants. The Plaintiffs oppose. Judge Milazzo says B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the response. The plaintiff's burden with respect to causation in a toxic tort case involves proof of both general causation and specific causation. On the topic of general causation, Dr. Cook produced a report dated May 31, 2022 and entitled "Health Effects Among Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response and Cleanup Workers: A Cause and Effect Analysis." This report, according to Judge Milazzo, is not unique to this case; another judge of this Court has described it as "an omnibus, non-case specific general causation expert report that has been used by many B3 plaintiffs." Seven sections of the Eastern District of Louisiana, including this one, excluded an earlier version of Dr. Cook's report dated March 14, 2022. Dr. Cook's May report does not appear to make any changes that disturb the reasons for excluding the March version. Indeed, at least three sections of this Court have also excluded the May 31, 2022 report as well. Accordingly, for the same reasons articulated by Judges Africk, Ashe, Vance, Barbier, Morgan, and Zainey, Judge Milzzo grants the Defendants' Motions in Limine. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs cannot prove general causation, and she also grants the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Order & Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/3x74d2pr from Leagle.com. BREY CORP: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brey Corp. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Brey Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-09219 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Brey Corporation, doing business as Hobby Works -- https://www.hobbyworks.com/ -- operates as a toy stores. The Company offers toys, games, hobby, and craft products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com BRISTOL FARMS: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Schwenk Suit Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHN SCHWENK, Plaintiff and Respondent v. BRISTOL FARMS, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. G060731, Consol No. w/G061138 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Fourth District, Division Three, affirms the trial court's order denying Bristol Farms' motion to compel arbitration of representative claims brought by its employee. The underlying employment case is based on wage and hour claims. Schwenk began working for Bristol Farms in 2009. In September 2020, he filed the lawsuit underlying this action, styled a class action complaint for violation of Labor Code section 226; and violation of Labor Code sections 2689, et seq. He alleged the first cause of action on behalf of himself and a putative class and the second cause of action on behalf of himself and the state pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Bristol Farms filed a demurrer to the complaint that was overruled; then it filed its answer in February 2021. Seven months after Schwenk filed his case in the trial court, Bristol Farms distributed to its employees an arbitration agreement to include a broad range of claims, including those involved in this litigation. The agreement contained an opt-out procedure for employees to follow if they did not want to be bound by the agreement. It is undisputed that one day after Schwenk signed and submitted the acknowledgment page of the arbitration agreement, he asked for it back, and shredded it. He crossed out his signature on the receipt tracking list in the presence of a Bristol Farms administrator who then initialed and confirmed the change on the form. Bristol Farms contends Schwenk impliedly assented to the proposed agreement to arbitrate. The trial court rejected the contention because it found Schwenk did not assent to the agreement. Bristol Farms appealed from the trial court's denial order and the trial court granted a stay. Schwenk's counsel subsequently filed lawsuits that resulted in an effectively identical ruling that Bristol Farms also appealed from; the appeals have been consolidated and the Court of Appeals' discussion resolves both. Bristol Farms argues it is entitled to a reversal as a matter of law based on a two-part argument: (1) Schwenk agreed to Bristol Farms' arbitration agreement by continuing employment; and so (2) Schwenk's failure to comply with the "opt out" procedure in the arbitration agreement constituted his consent to be bound by the arbitration agreement's terms. The Court of Appeals opines that Bristol Farms' contention for reversal under the specific facts of the case fail on a simpler ground: Schwenk was not limited to objectively expressing his lack of consent to Bristol Farms' proposed agreement in the manner specified by the opt out procedure because the circumstances shown by the record fail to support an implied consent theory of contract formation. In addition, the Court of Appeals opines that Schwenk's ability to outwardly manifest his intention about whether to consent to Bristol Farms' proposed agreement was broader than the opt out procedure Bristol Farms relies on. Accordingly, independent of Labor Code section 432.6's effect, Bristol Farms has not shown the reversible error it needs to prevail on appeal. Finally, Bristol Farms' attempt to characterize its arbitration agreement as a "unilateral offer of novation" offers no support for its position because it does nothing to alter our analysis about the controlling issue of contract formation. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's order denying Bristol Farms' motion to compel arbitration. Schwenk is entitled to his costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/4kt44bny from Leagle.com. Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, Kimberly M. Talley -- ktalley@constangy.com -- Steven B. Katz -- skatz@constangy.com -- Anthony Sbardellati -- anthony.sbardellati@akerman.com -- and Joanna E. MacMillan -- jmacmillan@constangy.com -- for the Defendant and Appellant. Diversity Law Group and Larry W. Lee -- lwlee@diversitylaw.com; Law Offices of Choi & Associates and Edward W. Choi -- edward.choi@choiandassociates.com; Hyun Legal and Dennis S. Hyun -- dhyun@hyunlegal.com; Polaris Law Group and William L. Marder -- bill@polarislawgroup.com -- for the Plaintiff and Respondent. BROOKSIDE, AL: Bid for Summary Judgment in Coleman v. Police Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BRITTANY COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE TOWN OF BROOKSIDE, ALABAMA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00423-RDP (N.D. Ala.), Judge R. David Proctor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, denies the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Marcus Sellers, Mareshah Moses and Anthony Ragsdale. On April 4, 2020, Coleman was driving on the highway in Brookside, Alabama, when Brookside Police Officer Sellers conducted a traffic stop because he observed that the Plaintiff was following the car in front of her too closely. When Officer Sellers came to the Plaintiff's window, he claimed to smell marijuana and ordered her to exit the vehicle. Officer Sellers immediately handcuffed the Plaintiff, and when she asked for an explanation, he stated that it was "standard procedure." Coleman, a 5'2" woman, was cooperating with the officer, had no weapons, and did not act in an aggressive or threatening manner. She was kept in handcuffs even after two additional officers (both male) arrived. The Defendants have provided body camera footage from those two additional officers, Officers Ragsdale and Moses, who arrived after the Plaintiff was handcuffed and removed from her car, but not from Officer Sellers. Officer Sellers searched the Plaintiff's car. She acknowledged that she had smoked marijuana earlier in the day, and that likely caused the odor. After searching her car, Officer Sellers claimed to find marijuana, and body camera footage shows him removing a bag from the car. However, the marijuana charge against the Plaintiff was ultimately dropped for lack of evidence, and the marijuana allegedly found in her car was never produced at any point during the criminal proceedings against her, despite requests from her attorney. After searching the Plaintiff's car, the Defendants conducted three field sobriety tests on the Plaintiff, each of which she passed. The Plaintiff received a citation and summons to attend court. The Defendants then proceeded to tow her car. The case is before the Court on Officer Sellers, Moses, and Ragsdale's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff brings one Section 1983 claim against Officers Sellers, Moses, and Ragsdale, in their individual capacities, alleging unconstitutional seizures in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (Count V). Specifically, she claims that the Defendants violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures when they (1) handcuffed her (and kept her handcuffed) during the traffic stop; and (2) towed and impounded her vehicle. The Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity from the Plaintiff's claims. Judge Proctor denies the Motion because a reasonable jury could find that the Defendants violated the Plaintiff's clearly established rights when they handcuffed her and towed her car without proper justification. First, Judge Proctor opines that the Defendants were acting within their discretionary authority because conducting a traffic stop and impounding a vehicle pursuant to a criminal ordinance are legitimate law enforcement functions for police officers. However, the Plaintiff has demonstrated that qualified immunity is not appropriate by pointing to genuine factual disputes over whether Defendants acted reasonably when handcuffing Plaintiff and impounding her vehicle. Resolving any doubts in favor of the Plaintiff, the non-movant, a reasonable jury could find that the Defendants violated her clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, and thus summary judgment is not warranted at this stage. Next, Judge Proctor holds that at no point did the Plaintiff give Officer Sellers, or any other officer, any reason to believe she posed a threat in any way, including threats to them, herself, or their investigation. The Defendants do not contest this claim, nor do they provide any reason for handcuffing her. Moreover, the body camera footage the Defendants have provided begins after Officer Sellers handcuffed the Plaintiff and thus does not depict the circumstances leading up to the handcuffing. On this sparse evidentiary record, the Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment. Finally, Judge Proctor finds that police may not tow a person's vehicle without lawful justification. In the case, there is a genuine factual dispute as to whether towing the Plaintiff's car was reasonable under the circumstances, and thus summary judgment is also not appropriate for this claim. A corresponding Order will be entered. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2dj4fkbp from Leagle.com. C.R. ENGLAND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sapiega Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES SAPIEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-05973 (N.D., Ill., Oct. 29, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Sapiega was employed by the Defendants as Driver. C.R. ENGLAND, INC. provides transportation services. The Company offers truck driving training, satellite tracking, communication, fleet billing, load tracking, electronic commerce, order consolidation, route optimization, and transport modeling services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 5000 Rockside Road Liberty Plaza - Suite 520 Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com - and - Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com CABELA'S INC: Montecalvo Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cabela's Inc. The case is styled as Peter Montecalvo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cabela's Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-11837 (D. Mass., Oct. 27, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Cabela's Inc. -- https://www.cabelas.com/shop/en -- is an American retailer that specializes in hunting, fishing, boating, camping, shooting and other outdoor recreation merchandise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT & SCOTT, LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 223-6444 Fax: (212) 223-6334 Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com CAMILLE BECKMAN: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Camille Beckman Corporation. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Camille Beckman Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-09169 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Camille Beckman Corporation -- https://camillebeckman.com/ -- retails beauty and personal care products online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com CIOX HEALTH: Fourth Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Thompson Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TAMMIE THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; DEBRA LOVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CIOX HEALTH, LLC, d/b/a IOD Incorporated; SCANSTAT TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-2102 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of the complaint. South Carolina law gives patients a right to obtain copies of their medical records, while capping the fees a physician, or other owner may bill for providing them. Asserting they were charged excessive fees, Plaintiffs Tammie Thompson and Debra Love sued third-party medical records companies that fulfilled their requests, but which do not -- and under South Carolina law, cannot -- own those records. Thompson and Love were injured in unspecified accidents and treated by South Carolina health care providers. Seeking to pursue personal injury lawsuits, they requested their medical records from the relevant providers. Those records -- and accompanying invoices -- were supplied by Ciox and ScanSTAT, "information management companies" that retrieve medical records from health care providers and transmit them to requesting patients or patient representatives. Claiming the invoiced fees were too high or otherwise illegal, Thompson and Love filed a putative class action against Ciox and ScanSTAT in federal district court. The complaint listed four claims, all arising under South Carolina law. The district court dismissed the complaint on two separate grounds: (1) that the South Carolina Physicians' Patient Records Act (Patient Records Act or Act) does not apply to medical records companies like Ciox and ScanSTAT; and (2) even if it did, the Act creates no private right of action. The Fourth Circuit reviews the district court's decision de novo. In its view, this appeal comes down to one question: Does the Patient Records Act cover companies like Ciox and ScanSTAT? To begin, the Fourth Circuit declines the Plaintiffs' belated request to certify this question to the Supreme Court of South Carolina. The Plaintiffs chose to file suit in a federal forum, and they never asked the district court to certify any questions to the state courts. Nor is this a situation where existing authority "is clearly insufficient" to resolve the question before the Fourth Circuit. Next, the Fourth Circuit opines that the problem for the Plaintiffs is straightforward: The "plain and ordinary meaning" of the Patient Records Act does not cover the kind of entities they have sued. The parties agree that when companies like Ciox and ScanSTAT fulfill requests for copies of patient records, they do so as agents for the doctors and hospitals who are, under South Carolina law, the only permissible owners of such records. The Patient Records Act says what it does, and the Plaintiffs identify no South Carolina authority for the proposition that it is absurd to require claims to be brought against certain defendants even when it may be more convenient to sue others. The Fourth Circuit's conclusion that the Patient Records Act does not apply to Ciox and ScanSTAT is enough to affirm the dismissal of all of the Plaintiffs' claims. Their first and fourth causes of action directly accuse Ciox and ScanSTAT of violating the Act. And their second and third causes of action likewise fail because they are, as pled, premised on the notion that Ciox and ScanSTAT (rather than any owner of medical records) "charged more than is allowed by" the Patient Records Act or "acted in direct violation of " it. Because the statutory obligations at issue apply only to physicians and other owners of medical records, not medical records companies, the Fourth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of the complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8zun9hk from Leagle.com. ARGUED: James C. Bradley -- jbradley@rpwb.com -- ROGERS, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellants. Gilad Yair Bendheim -- gilad.bendheim@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, New York, New York, for the Appellees. ON BRIEF: Nina H. Fields -- nfields@rpwb.com -- Caleb M. Hodge, ROGERS, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellants. A. Victor Rawl, Jr. -- vrawl@grsm.com -- Brittany T. Bihun -- bbihun@grsm.com -- GORDON & REES LLP, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees ScanSTAT Technologies LLC. Jay P. Lefkowitz -- lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- Mason E. Reynolds -- mason.reynolds@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, New York, New York, for Appellee Ciox Health, LLC. CITIC CAPITAL: Tang RICO Class Suit Moved From D.N.J. to D. Del. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOHN YONG TANG and FARIS AL KOOHEJI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CITIC CAPITAL HOLDINGS LTD., HARBIN PHARMACEUTICAL GROUP HOLDING CO., LTD., HARBIN PHARMACEUTICAL GROUP CO., LTD., KENNETH A. MARTINDALE, TRICIA K. TOLIVAR, HSING CHOW, RACHEL LAU, MICHELE S. MEYER, ALAN WAN, YONG KAI WONG, ALAN D. FELDMAN, MICHAEL F. HINES, AMY B. LANE, PHILIP E. MALLOTT, ROBERT F. MORAN, EVERCORE INC., GREGORY BERUBE, ABC COMPANY, and JOHN DOE, Case No. 2:21-cv-17008, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on October 24, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the District of Delaware assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-01389-UNA to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, conspiracy, fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, conversion, negligence, and aiding and abetting a conspiracy. CITIC Capital Holdings Ltd. is a global private equity firm based in China. Harbin Pharmaceutical Group Holding Co., Ltd. is a state-owned pharmaceutical company in China. Harbin Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. is a state-owned pharmaceutical company in China. Evercore Inc. is a global independent investment banking advisory firm based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Y. Tang, Esq. TANG PC 655 Summit Avenue Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 676-0757 Facsimile: (212) 981-4869 E-mail: john.tang@gettang.com CITIC CAPITAL: Tang Suit Transferred to D. Delaware --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as John Young Tang, Faris Al Kooheji, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CITIC CAPITAL HOLDINGS LTD., et al., was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District Court of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Oct. 27, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 22-50455-KBO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Money/Property. CITIC Capital Holdings Limited -- https://www.citiccapital.com/ -- is an alternative investment management and advisory company.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. The Defendants appear pro se. CLOROX COMPANY: Scandore Files Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Clorox Company. The case is styled as Charles Scandore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Clorox Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-06545-GRB-AYS (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. The Clorox Company -- https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/ -- is an American global manufacturer and marketer of consumer and professional products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. David Magagna, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Fax: (215) 592-4663 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com dmagagna@lfsblaw.com - and - Daniel Harris Markowitz, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (845) 483-7100 Email: markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Jeffrey Kevin Brown, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 Fax: (516) 747-5024 Email: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com - and - Joseph Lipari, Esq. Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (917) 444-1960 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com COMICLINK SERVICES: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ComicLink Services, LLC. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ComicLink Services, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09199 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ComicLink -- https://www.comiclink.com/ -- is the world's leading third-party grading service for pop culture collectibles, including comic books, trading cards, magazines, concert posters 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 CONAGRA BRANDS: Jackson Sues Over Popcorn's False "Naturals" Label ------------------------------------------------------------------ ELOISE JACKSON-DORSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-05863 (N.D. Ill., October 24, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and State Consumer Fraud Acts, and breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose, and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its microwave popcorn under the Orville Redenbacher brand. The Defendant represented the product as "Naturals" and containing "Only Real Ingredients" but in reality, the product contains mixed tocopherols, a non-natural and non-real ingredient, as mentioned on its back panel list. The statement of "Naturals" is misleading because consumers do not expect the product to contain non-natural ingredients like mixed tocopherols. As a result of the Defendant's false and misleading representations and omissions, the product is sold at a premium price, says the suit. Conagra Brands, Inc. is a food manufacturer, with a principal place of business in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com DOBRIN GROUP: Sweeney Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- William Sweeney, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, v. DOBRIN GROUP, INC. DBA THE TESTING COMPANY, a California Corporation; ELEVATE STAFFING INC., a California Corporation; BORIS DOBRIN, an Individual; VADIM DOBRIN, an Individual; EDWARD WOOD, an Individual; JAMES ANDERSON, an Individual; CARINA FILEK, an Individual; and, DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 22STCV34436 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 27, 2022), is brought against the Defendants failure to provide meal periods or compensation; failure to provide rest periods or compensation; failure to pay wages: minimum wages and/or overtime; failure to furnish and keep accurate wage statements and payroll waiting time penalties violations of the UCL penalties under PAGA. The Plaintiff was not provided an off-duty meal break when he worked at least five hours in a workday. The Plaintiff was not relived of all duties during his work day and instead remained on-duty throughout her shift. On many occasions, the Plaintiff was also provided untimely on-duty meal breaks. Also, the Plaintiff was not provided a second meal break when he worked in excess of 10 hours per day. The Plaintiff was not permitted to take lawful ten-minute rest breaks when he worked at least 3.5 hours in a workday. On many occasions, Plaintiff was also not provided timely rest breaks. Also, the Plaintiff was not provided a third rest break when he worked in excess of 10 hours per day. At all times during the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, the Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff one additional hour of pay at the Plaintiff's regular rate of pay for each day a lawful rest break was not provided. California law requires an employer, such as the Defendants, to pay overtime compensation to all non-exempt employees. The Plaintiff and the other class members do not presently qualify, and have not at any time during the class period qualified, under any exemption from the requirement that their employer pay overtime compensation under California law. Therefore, the Plaintiff and the other class members are entitled to be paid overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked, including hours worked during a meal break and as a result of working a split shift premium, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendants from March 2021 to March 2022 as an hourly paid non-exempt employee. DOBRIN GROUP, INC. DBA THE TESTING COMPANY. is a California corporation authorized to do business and doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Morris Nazarian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MORRIS NAZARIAN 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1790 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 284-7333 Facsimile: (310) 284-7332 DUTCHMAN HOSPITALITY: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dutchman Hospitality Group, Inc. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dutchman Hospitality Group, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09245 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dutchman Hospitality Group -- https://dhgroup.com/ -- is a hospitality company headquartered in Walnut Creek, Ohio operating seven restaurants, five inns, six bakeries, seven shops, a wholesale food supplier, and a 500-seat theatre.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com ECHO TECH: Underpays Cardiac Sonographers, Lopez FLSA Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICKY LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ECHO TECH UNLIMITED-ULTRA SOUND SCANNING SERVICES, INC. and RAY MALDONADO, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-03669 (S.D. Tex., October 24, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Lopez worked for Echo Tech as a registered cardiac sonographer from October of 2020 through June 16, 2021, and then August 18, 2021 through May of 2022. Echo Tech Unlimited-Ultra Sound Scanning Services, Inc. is a multi-imaging mobile service provider based in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq. Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 10099 Houston, TX 77206 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: tpadgett@buenkerlaw.com jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com ELITE COMICS11: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elite Comics11 LLC. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Elite Comics11 LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09197 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Elite Comics11 -- https://comicselitecomics.com/ -- is the largest seller of Comic Books on Facebook offering exclusive covers for Marvel, Dynamite, Image, DC, IDW 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 ELITE FLAGGING: Doke FLSA Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Flaggers -------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTANY DOKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELITE FLAGGING SOLUTIONS LLC, TERRELL PHABIAN, and JANE DOE PHABIAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01822-GMS (D. Ariz., October 24, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona's wage statutes. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a flagger since January 1, 2022. Elite Flagging Solutions LLC is a provider of traffic control services, headquartered in Surprise, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Brown, Esq. ERNST, BROWN & DRAPER, PLLC 3303 E. Baseline Road, Suite 101A Gilbert, AZ 85234 Telephone: (602) 324-9644 E-mail: tbrown@ebdlawyers.com EQUIFAX INC: Settles Consumer Suits Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- Equifax Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2022, that on July 19, 2019 and July 22, 2019, the company entered into multiple agreements that resolved the U.S. consolidated consumer class action cases, captioned "In re: Equifax, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 2800 and the investigations of the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Attorneys General of 48 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico and the New York State Department of Financial Services. The settlement became effective on January 11, 2022. Under the terms of the Consumer Settlement, the company contributed $380.5 million to a non-reversionary settlement fund to provide restitution for U.S. consumers identified by the company whose personal information was compromised as a result of the 2017 cybersecurity incident as well as to pay reasonable attorneys' fees and reasonable costs and expenses for the plaintiffs' counsel in the U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation (not to exceed $80.5 million), settlement administration costs and notice costs. Equifax Inc. is a data, analytics and technology company based in Georgia. EVERLAST WORLDWIDE: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Everlast Worldwide, Inc. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Everlast Worldwide, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09211 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Everlast is an American brand of sports equipment, focused on boxing, mixed martial arts and physical fitness, which markets its products worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com FU TAI INC: Ramales Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Perez Ramales, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. FU TAI INC. (D/B/A MERRYLAND BUFFET), CUN YU LIN, QING LIN, and SHI DONG, Case No. 1:22-cv-09177 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2022), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff Perez worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff Perez the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a food preparer and dishwasher at the restaurant. The Defendants own, operate, or control an Asian restaurant, located in Bronx, New York under the name "Merryland Buffet."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Varela Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Rochelle Varela, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Company, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV30991 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 26, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-07801-MCS-KS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. The Ghirardelli Chocolate Company -- https://www.ghirardelli.com/ -- is an American confectioner, wholly owned by Swiss confectioner Lindt & Sprungli.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bahar Sodaify, Esq. Christina Mirzaie, Esq. Ryan J Clarkson, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM PC 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Phone: (213) 788-4050 Fax: (213) 788-4070 Email: bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com cmirzaie@clarksonlawfirm.com rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Dale J. Giali, Esq. Keri E Borders, Esq. Rebecca Bari Johns, Esq. KING AND SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: ((213) 443-4329 Fax: (213) 443-4310 Email: dgiali@kslaw.com kborders@kslaw.com rjohns@kslaw.com GIANT OF MARYLAND: Faces Kibec Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Maryland ---------------------------------------------------------------- TYLER KIBEC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GIANT OF MARYLAND, LLC d/b/a GIANT, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02733-BPG (D. Md., October 24, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay wages, including proper minimum wages and overtime, for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Minimum Wage Act, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, and the Virginia Payment of Wage Law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt employee in Virginia. Giant of Maryland, LLC, doing business as Giant, is an operator of grocery stores, headquartered in Prince George's County, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 999-5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law - and - Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Rd., Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 327-5369 Facsimile: (954) 327-3016 E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Kenan Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Toya Kenan and Monica Cooper, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GLOBAL PAYMENTS, INC., a Georgia Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-04270-JPB (N.D. Ga., Oct. 26, 2022), is brought arising from the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, and for common law claims of breach of contract or (in the alternative) unjust enrichment by failing to pay overtime compensation. The Defendant requires its CSRs to work a full-time schedule, plus overtime, however, the Defendant does not compensate CSRs for all work performed. The Defendant requires their CSRs to perform compensable work tasks off-the-clock before and after their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid meal periods. This policy results in CSRs not being paid for all time worked, including overtime. Because the Defendant's CSRs typically worked 40 hours or more in a workweek, the Defendant's policies and practices also deprived them of overtime pay in many workweeks. The Defendant knew or should have known that the time spent by CSRs in connection with the pre-shift, meal-period and post-shift activities was compensable under the law. Unpaid wages related to the off-the-clock work are owed to CSRs at the FLSA mandated overtime premium of one and one-half times their regular hourly rate because CSRs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs who worked for the Defendant as a remote customer service representatives (CSRs). The Defendant "is a technology and software company, providing the world's leading complete commerce ecosystem to businesses of every size."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Y. Coffman, Esq. PARKS, CHESIN, & WALBERT, PC 75 14th Street, 26th Floor Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 873-8000 Email: acoffman@pcwlawfirm.com - and - Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. ASH LAW, PLLC 402 W. Liberty Street Ann Arbor, MI 48178 Phone: (734) 234-5583 Email: cash@nationalwagelaw.com - and - Oscar Rodriguez, Esq. HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C. 126 Main St. Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1903 Phone: (734) 662-4426 Email: orod@hooperhathaway.com GOLDEN APPLE: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golden Apple Industries, Inc. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Golden Apple Industries, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09203 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Golden Apple has been supplying after-market auto parts for every type of vehicle.[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 GOODYEAR TIRE: Perkins Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. The case is styled as Kendra Perkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-01521-WSH (W.D. Pa., Oct. 27, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company -- https://corporate.goodyear.com/us/en.html -- is an American multinational tire manufacturing company founded in 1898 by Frank Seiberling and based in Akron, Ohio.[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 HARD ROCK: Improperly Pays Restaurant Staff, Carpenter Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY CARPENTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARD ROCK CAFE INTERNATIONAL (STP), INC. and HARD ROCK CAFE INTERNATIONAL, INC. (GA), Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04224-AT (N.D. Ga., October 24, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a server and bartender at Hard Rock Cafe restaurant in San Antonio, Texas and Atlanta, Georgia from approximately July 2018 to August 2020. Hard Rock Cafe International (STP), Inc. is an operator of a nationwide chain of restaurants with the name Hard Rock Cafe, doing business in Georgia. Hard Rock Cafe International, Inc. (GA) is an operator of a nationwide chain of restaurants with the name Hard Rock Cafe, doing business in Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arnold J. Lizana, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III 1175 Peachtree Street NE, 10th Floor Atlanta, GA 30361 Telephone: (404) 207-1559 Facsimile: (470) 231-0672 - and - Don J. Foty, Esq. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com - and - Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com INTERO REAL ESTATE: Class Deal in Chinitz TCPA Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, RONALD CHINITZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. INTERO REAL ESTATE SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-05623-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, grants: (1) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; and (2) the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Service Awards. On Sept. 13, 2018, former named Plaintiff Chinitz initiated a class action lawsuit alleging Intero violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 ("TCPA"), and its implementing regulations, 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200, as well as California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200-17210 ("UCL"). He alleged he received, inter alia, unwanted telephone solicitations on behalf of Intero to residential telephone lines he had previously registered on the National Do Not Call ("DNC") Registry and repeated unwanted telemarketing calls on his residential telephone lines after he had asked Intero and/or its agents not to call him back. The Court certified the National DNC Class and the Internal DNC Class (the latter as to injunctive relief only). Chinitz sought approval of a class notice plan for the National DNC Class, which the Court approved in part. The Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment and Intero moved for summary judgment. In March 2021, they filed a motion to amend the scheduling order, amend the Complaint, and substitute the class representative because Chinitz, unbeknownst to the Class Counsel, had attempted to negotiate a settlement directly with Intero. On April 12, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part the certified class' motion for partial summary judgment. It denied Intero's summary judgment motion, except as to the UCL claim and granted the Motion to Substitute. The Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint adding allegations specific to Mitchell and Kelly, and the Court dismissed the UCL claim. Meanwhile, on April 1, 2021, the Court referred the parties to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero for settlement discussions. The parties participated in Zoom settlement conferences before Chief Magistrate Judge Spero in July and September 2021. Chief Magistrate Judge Spero scheduled an additional 2.5-hour settlement conference on Sept. 22, 2021, at which the parties reached agreement in principle on the terms of a settlement of the entire case. They then negotiated the precise terms of the Settlement Agreement, which was executed on Oct. 27, 2021. The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Preliminary Approval on Oct. 29, 2021. The Parties did not discuss fees and expenses until after agreement on the terms of the settlement for the class. The Court held a hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Approval on April 7, 2022 and entered an order granting preliminary approval the same day. The Settlement Class is defined as: All persons in the United States who: (a) received two or more calls on their residential telephone number; (b) that had a duration of more than zero seconds; (c) initiated by, or on behalf of, a real estate salesperson at a time when Intero or Intero Referral Services was the salesperson's responsible broker (as reflected in the records maintained by the California Department of Real Estate ('DRE')); (d) promoting the purchase of Intero's goods or services; (e) placed through the dialing platform provided by Mojo Dialing Solutions, LLC, the call records for which appear in one of 35 account files, identified in Appendix A to the Court's order granting class certification in the Litigation; (f) within a 12-month period; (g) whose telephone number(s) were on the NDNCR for at least 31 days prior to the calls; and (h) at any time since Sept. 13, 2014. Any class member who submits a timely, valid Approved Claim will receive a payment of $350. The Settlement Agreement also provides injunctive relief, including development and implementation of procedures to ensure compliance with the TCPA's do-not-call provisions and training for Intero representatives. After preliminary approval, the parties provided Notice of the Settlement in accordance with the Settlement Agreement and Preliminary Approval Order. To disseminate the notice, KCC, the Settlement Administrator, carried out the terms of the Settlement Agreement. As to requests for exclusion and objections, KCC received three requests for exclusion and no objections. The Plaintiffs moved for final approval on Aug. 19, 2022 and filed a supplemental declaration from the Settlement Administrator on Oct. 19, 2022. The Plaintiffs seeks (1) final approval of the proposed class action settlement; (2) approval of the Class Counsel's application for $2,775,000 in attorneys' fees and costs (the costs total $349,695.56 and the fees total $2,425,304.44); and (3) approval of the Named Plaintiffs' request for service awards of $5,000 each. The Court heard the Plaintiffs' motions on Oct. 20, 2022. Judge Freeman concludes that the requirements of Rule 23 are met and thus that certification of the class for settlement purposes is appropriate. She further concludes that the notice of the proposed settlement was adequate, the settlement is not the result of collusion, and that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Accordingly, she grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. Judge Freeman also grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Service Awards. She has reviewed the Class Counsel's itemized lists of costs and finds that all of the expenses were necessary to the prosecution of this litigation. She further finds the amount of attorneys' fees to be reasonable and in line with rates approved in this District for attorneys of similar skill and experience. Lastly, Judge Freeman approves the timely requests for exclusion by Joseph Ponte, Hosea Colvin, and Ada Colvin. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2eye8xhy from Leagle.com. JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, City of Morganfield Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF MORGANFIELD, KENTUCKY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; NU MARK LLC; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06379 (N.D. Cal., October 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence, punitive damages, unjust enrichment, strict product liability for failure to warn and design defect, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. City of Morganfield is a Kentucky municipality. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Nu Mark LLC is a tobacco company based in Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: T. Roe Frazer II, Esq. Thomas Roe Frazer III, Esq. FRAZER PLC 30 Burton Hills Blvd., Ste. 450 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 647-6464 E-mail: roe@frazer.law trey@frazer.law JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Hazleton Area Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- HAZLETON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; NU MARK LLC; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06369 (N.D. Cal., October 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, punitive damages, unjust enrichment, strict product liability for failure to warn and design defect, and violations of Pennsylvania Public Nuisance and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Hazleton Area School District is a public school district with its administrative offices located at 1515 West 23rd Street, Hazle Township, Pennsylvania. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Nu Mark LLC is a tobacco company based in Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: T. Roe Frazer II, Esq. Thomas Roe Frazer III, Esq. FRAZER PLC 30 Burton Hills Blvd., Ste. 450 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 647-6464 E-mail: roe@frazer.law trey@frazer.law JUUL LABS: Faces Mid Valley Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- MID VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; NU MARK LLC; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06378 (N.D. Cal., October 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, punitive damages, unjust enrichment, strict product liability for failure to warn and design defect, and violations of Pennsylvania Public Nuisance and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Mid Valley School District is a public school district with its administrative offices located at 52 Underwood Road, Throop, Pennsylvania. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Nu Mark LLC is a tobacco company based in Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: T. Roe Frazer II, Esq. Thomas Roe Frazer III, Esq. FRAZER PLC 30 Burton Hills Blvd., Ste. 450 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 647-6464 E-mail: roe@frazer.law trey@frazer.law JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Wilkes-Barre Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- WILKES-BARRE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; NU MARK LLC; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06374 (N.D. Cal., October 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, punitive damages, unjust enrichment, strict product liability for failure to warn and design defect, and violations of Pennsylvania Public Nuisance and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Wilkes-Barre Area School District is a public school district with its administrative offices located at 730 South Main Street, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Nu Mark LLC is a tobacco company based in Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: T. Roe Frazer II, Esq. Thomas Roe Frazer III, Esq. FRAZER PLC 30 Burton Hills Blvd., Ste. 450 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 647-6464 E-mail: roe@frazer.law trey@frazer.law JUUL LABS: Tunkhannock Area Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing ----------------------------------------------------------------- TUNKHANNOCK AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; NU MARK LLC; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06372 (N.D. Cal., October 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, punitive damages, unjust enrichment, strict product liability for failure to warn and design defect, and violations of Pennsylvania Public Nuisance and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Tunkhannock Area School District is a public school district with its administrative offices located at 41 Philadelphia Avenue, Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Nu Mark LLC is a tobacco company based in Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: T. Roe Frazer II, Esq. Thomas Roe Frazer III, Esq. FRAZER PLC 30 Burton Hills Blvd., Ste. 450 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 647-6464 E-mail: roe@frazer.law trey@frazer.law JUUL LABS: Wyoming Valley Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction ----------------------------------------------------------------- WYOMING VALLEY WEST SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; NU MARK LLC; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06377 (N.D. Cal., October 21, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, punitive damages, unjust enrichment, strict product liability for failure to warn and design defect, and violations of Pennsylvania Public Nuisance and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Wyoming Valley West School District is a public school district with its administrative offices located at 450 North Maple Avenue, Kingston, Pennsylvania. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Nu Mark LLC is a tobacco company based in Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: T. Roe Frazer II, Esq. Thomas Roe Frazer III, Esq. FRAZER PLC 30 Burton Hills Blvd., Ste. 450 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 647-6464 E-mail: roe@frazer.law trey@frazer.law KEYBANK NATIONAL: Pittman Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keybank National Association, et al. The case is styled as Jacint Pittman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Keybank National Association, Keycorp. and Overby-Seawell Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-01513-RJC (W.D. Pa., Oct. 26, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. KeyBank -- https://www.key.com/personal/index.html -- the primary subsidiary of KeyCorp, is a regional bank headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C. 1575 McFarland Road, Ste. 305 Pittsburgh, PA 15216 Phone: (215) 884-2491 Email: yateslaw@aol.com LA FERMIERE: Manier Sues Over Misrepresentation on Labels --------------------------------------------------------- Sharon Manier, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LA FERMIERE INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 5:22-cv-01894 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 27, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Consumers Legal Remedies Act or "CLRA"; the Unfair Competition Law or "UCL"; and the False Advertising Law as a result of the Defendants misrepresentation on the labels of its yogurt products. The Defendant profits off the booming market for foreign made goods by misrepresenting on the labels of its yogurt products that they are made in France. In reality, the yogurts are made in New York. The yogurts are sold in several flavors, including, vanilla bean, pressed lemon, orange blossom honey, rose, lavender, mango passion fruit, raspberry blueberry, peach apricot, strawberry pomegranate, salted caramel, pineapple coconut and plain. In addition, there are seasonal flavors including pumpkin spice and chestnut. Collectively, all flavors of yogurt are referred to as "Products". The front label on the Products are all identical, except for the name of the flavor, the picture associated with the flavor, the size of the jar, and a "Seasonal Flavor" stamp for the seasonal flavors. The Defendant's marketing, labeling and sale of the Products misleads a reasonable consumer to believe that the yogurts are made in France, by using the words "Naturally French" on the front label. Consumers interpret that statement to mean that the products are made in France, when in actuality they are made in the United States, in New York. Consumers care about where and how products are made. The Defendant is able to charge a premium price based on these misrepresentations and consumers pay this premium price believing that the yogurt they are purchasing was actually made in France. The Plaintiff was misled by the affirmative misrepresentations on the Defendant's product packaging. Had she been aware of the misrepresentations, she would not have purchased the Defendant's products, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has purchased the Products several times during the relevant statute of limitations period for personal and household consumption. The Defendant is in the business of manufacturing, distributing and selling yogurts throughout the country, including in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben Travis, Esq. BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: (619) 353-7966 Email: ben@bentravislaw.com LOCUST MEDICAL: Court Denies Bid to Strike Jackson's Class Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GERARD JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOCUST MEDICAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:22-CV-00424 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Matthew W. Brann of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denies Locust's motion to strike the class allegations. In March 2022, Jackson, on behalf of himself on all similarly situated individuals, filed a complaint against Locust alleging that Locust violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). In his complaint, Jackson avers that Locust contracts with a telemarketing firm to place calls to consumers with whom Locust has no relationship in order to sell durable medical equipment. Jackson's telephone number has been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry ("NDNCR") since Dec. 4, 2006. Nevertheless, Locust -- or a telemarketing firm acting on its behalf -- placed telemarketing calls to Jackson on eight occasions in December of 2021. The telephone calls to Jackson followed a similar script and offered medical braces to help with body pain. Eventually, Jackson agreed to purchase medical braces and discovered that it was Locust that was calling; Jackson's insurance later confirmed that a claim for the medical braces had been submitted by Locust. Jackson did not consent to, or request, the calls from Locust. Mr. Jackson seeks class certification of his claim, and defines his proposed class as: All persons in the United States whose (1) telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days, (2) but who received more than one telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Defendant (3) within a 12-month period, (4) from four years prior the filing of the Complaint. Locust now moves to strike the proposed class, asserting that the allegations fail to meet the requirements for class certification. Specifically, it asserts that the class definition may include individuals who canceled or opted out of the NDNCR or who were removed from the NDNCR by the administrator. Because the proposed class does not exclude such individuals, Locust argues that it fails both the commonality and predominance requirements for class certification. Furthermore, it contends that the proposed class fails to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). Mr. Jackson responds that striking the class allegation is inappropriate before discovery has been conducted, as issues of consent to receive phone calls or the potential cancellation of an individual's registration on the NDNCR are difficult to resolve prior to discovery. Locust has not filed a reply brief and the time to do so has lapsed, rendering this matter ripe for disposition. Judge Brann opines that at this stage in the proceedings -- prior to any discovery having been conducted -- he cannot find that the complaint itself demonstrates that the requirements for maintaining a class action cannot be met. It simply is not possible at this stage of litigation to determine whether some members of the proposed class were removed from the NDNCR or whether Locust will be able to sustain its burden of demonstrating that some proposed class members consented to receive communications from Locust. Finally, while Locust argues that Jackson cannot meet the Rule 23(b)(2) standard requiring that Locust "acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class," that alleged failure is far from dispositive. Because the complaint itself does not "demonstrate that the requirements for maintaining a class action cannot be met," Locust must challenge class certification at a later stage in these proceedings. Locust's motion to strike the class allegations is denied. An appropriate Order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n74m3wm from Leagle.com. LONE STAR COMICS: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lone Star Comics, Inc. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lone Star Comics, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09191 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lone Star Comics was a chain of comic book stores located in the Dallas-Fort Worth area in north central Texas.[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 MARIA PABLITO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rossis Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JUNIOR GERONIMO ROSSIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v MARIA PABLITO GROCERY CORP.(d/b/a MARIA PABLITO DELI & GROCERY), N & L GROCERY STORE INC. (d/b/a MARIA PABLITO DELI & GROCERY), ELVIN PIMENTEL, and JUAN ROSARIO, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-09259 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2022) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Rossis was employed by the Defendants as general worker and stock worker. MARIA PABLITO GROCERY CORP. owns and operates a deli, located at 1551 Sheridan Avenue, Bronx, NY 10457 under the name "Maria Pablito Deli & Grocery." 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 MDL 2903: Certification of California Class Sought in Wray Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wray v. Fisher Price, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01067 (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a California Class: "All persons in the state of California, other than Mattel, Inc. and FisherPrice, Inc., and their employees, who purchased new any model of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper primarily for personal, family, or household purposes from October 1, 2009, until the date of notice;" 2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Demet Basar, and James B. Eubank as Class Counsel. On February 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs who purchased a new Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper filed their Motion for Class Certification and memorandum in support seeking to certify classes of Sleeper purchasers under twelve states' laws. The Plaintiffs Karen Flores and Megan Kaden sought to certify the following claims: (1) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (3) breach of implied warranty; and (4) unjust enrichment. After Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in further support of class certification, this Court "focused on the certification issues presented by the New York plaintiffs." On June 2, 2022, this Court certified a class of Sleeper purchasers in New York pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4). The Plaintiffs previously provided an extensive factual background in prior briefing. Thus, the focus here is on the facts relating to Plaintiffs Flores and Kaden. The Wray Suit is consolidated in re: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 2903). Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FQ9xFF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Demet Basar, Esq. James B. Eubank, Esq. Paul W. Evans, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Terrence Connors, Esq. Andrew M. Debbins, Esq. CONNORS LLP 1000 Liberty Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 852-5533 E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com amd@connorsllp.com MESA AIR: Class Settlement in Lowthorp Suit Has Prelim. Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, David G. Lowthorp, Plaintiff v. Mesa Air Group Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-20-00648-PHX-MTL (D. Ariz.), Judge Michael T. Liburdi of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona grants the parties' Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement and the Class Representative's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Judge Liburdi preliminarily finds that the Court will likely be able to approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2), subject to further consideration at the Settlement Hearing set for April 6, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. (Arizona time). He approves the form, substance, and requirements of the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the Notice) and the Proof of Claim and Release form (the Claim Form), however, the parties will alter the Notice and Claim Form to reflect the terms and dates set in the Order. Judge Liburdi approves the retention of A.B. Data, Ltd., the firm retained by the Lead Counsel, as the Claims Administrator. He also approves the appointment of Huntington National Bank or its successor as the Escrow Agent to manage and administer the Settlement Fund for the benefit of the Class. Not later than 7 days after the Court signs and enters the Order, Mesa will provide and/or cause its transfer agent to provide to the Lead Counsel transfer records containing the names and addresses of Persons who may have purchased or acquired Mesa Air Group Inc.'s securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO commenced on Aug.t 9, 2018. This information will be kept confidential and will not be used for any purpose other than to provide the notice contemplated by the Order. Not later than 21 days after entry of the Preliminary Approval Order (the Notice Date), the Claims Administrator, will mail the Notice and Claim Form to the list of record holders of Mesa securities, and will post to its website: (1) the Stipulation and its exhibits, (2) this Order, and (3) a copy of the Notice (124-2) and Claim Form. The Claims Administrator will use reasonable efforts to give notice to nominee purchasers such as brokerage firms and other Persons and entities that purchased or acquired Mesa securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO as record owners but not as beneficial owners. Such nominees will either: (a) within 10 days of receipt of the Notice and Claim Form, request from the Claims Administrator sufficient copies of the Notice and Claim Form to forward to all such beneficial owners and within 10 days after receipt thereof forward them to all such beneficial owners; or (b) within 10 days of receipt of the Notice and Claim Form, provide a list of the names, addresses, and email addresses (to the extent known) to the Claims Administrator and the Claims Administrator is ordered to send the Notice promptly to such beneficial owners. The Claims Administrator shall, if requested, reimburse nominees or custodians out of the Settlement Fund solely for their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in providing notice to beneficial owners, up to $0.70 per unit if the nominee or custodian elects to undertake the mailing of the Notice and Claim Form or up to $0.10 per name if the nominee or custodian provides the names and addresses to the Claims Administrator, which expenses would not have been incurred except for the sending of such notice, and subject to further order of this Court with respect to any dispute concerning such reimbursement. Judge Liburdi approves the form of the Summary Notice and directs that the Claims Administrator will cause the Summary Notice to be published in Investor's Business Daily and transmitted over GlobeNewswire within 14 days after the Notice Date. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (Lead Counsel) shall, at least 7 days prior to the Settlement Hearing, file with the Court proof of mailing of the Notice and Claim Form and proof of publishing of the Summary Notice. Putative Settlement Class Members who timely and validly request exclusion from the Class will not be eligible to receive any payment out of the Net Settlement Fund as described in the Stipulation and Notice. The Court will consider any Settlement Class Member's objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, the application for an award of attorneys' fees, expenses, and/or an award to the Lead Plaintiff only if such Settlement Class Member has delivered by hand or sent by mail written objections, postmarked no later than March 17, 2023, to: Clerk of the Court Lowthorp v. Mesa Air Group Incorporated, et al., No. CV-20-00648-PHX-MTL United States District Court District for the District of Arizona Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003; with copies to James M. Wilson, Jr., Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017; and Nina F. Locker and Charles A. Talpas, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050. If replies are necessary, they will be filed and served no later than March 31, 2023. As provided in the Stipulation, the Escrow Agent may disburse at the direction of Lead Counsel up to $150,000 from the Settlement Fund prior to the Effective Date to pay Notice and Administration Expenses. For any additional Notice and Administration Expenses above $150,000, the Lead Counsel will obtain Court approval for payments out of the Escrow Account. All papers in support of the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and any application by Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses or by the Lead Plaintiff for his costs and expenses will be filed and served no later than Feb. 10, 2023. All funds held by the Escrow Agent will be deemed and considered to be in custodia legis of the Court, and will remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court until such time as such funds will be disbursed pursuant to the Stipulation and/or further order(s) of the Court. All reasonable expenses incurred in identifying and notifying the Class Members, as well as administering the Settlement Fund, will be paid as set forth in the Stipulation. In the event the settlement is not approved by the Court, or otherwise fails to become effective, neither the Lead Plaintiff nor the Lead Counsel will have any obligation to repay any amounts incurred or disbursed pursuant to the Stipulation. The Lead Counsel shall, within 60 days of the Order, submit a notice to the Court with the Claims Administrator's website. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3wm4v4wc from Leagle.com. META PLATFORMS: Sijelmassi Sues Over Intercepted Browsing Activity ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sarah Sijelmassi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-06619 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 27, 2022), is brought seeking relief for all persons who used Meta's Facebook, Instagram, or Messenger app and whose private browsing activity and communications were surreptitiously intercepted, monitored, and recorded by Meta's in-app internet browsers. Beginning in April 2021, Apple's iOS 14 update required Meta to obtain its users' informed consent before tracking their internet activity on apps and third-party websites. As a result, Meta lost access to its primary stream of revenue, derived from the user data it obtained from this tracking. Now, even when users do not consent to being tracked, Meta tracks Facebook and Instagram users' online activity and communications with external third-party websites by injecting JavaScript code into those sites. When a user clicks on a web link within the Facebook, Instagram, or Messenger app, Meta automatically directs them to the in-app browser Meta monitors instead of the user's default browser. Meta does not tell its users this is happening or explain that they are being tracked. The user information Meta intercepts, monitors, and records includes personally identifiable information, private health details, text entries, and other sensitive confidential facts. Meta's undisclosed tracking of citizens' browsing activity and communications violates federal and state wiretap laws and other laws, entitling the Plaintiff and Class members to damages. The Plaintiff and Class members also seek injunctive relief and equitable remedies to stop Meta's undisclosed and nonconsensual tracking practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has had an active Facebook account for several years and regularly accesses her account using the Facebook App on her iPhone. Meta is the owner and operator of several large social media platforms, including Facebook and Instagram.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordon R. Harlan, Esq. HARLAN LAW, PC 2404 Broadway, 2nd Floor San Diego, CA 92102 Phone: (619) 870-0802 Facsimile: (619) 870-0815 Email: jordon@harlanpc.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Phone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com META PLATFORMS: V.P. Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as V.P., on behalf of her minor child J.P., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Facebook Holdings, LLC, Facebook Operations LLC, Facebook Technologies LLC, Instagram LLC, Case No. 22-CIV-03935 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 27, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-06617-YGR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Meta Platforms, Inc. formerly known as: Facebook Inc. -- https://about.facebook.com/meta/ -- is an American multinational technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Kristin A. Linsley, Esq. Rosemarie Theresa Ring, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 393-8379 Email: KLinsley@gibsondunn.com rring@gibsondunn.com MIDTRONICS INC: Sued Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data -------------------------------------------------------- Carmelita Satterwhite, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MIDTRONICS, INC., Case No. 2022LA000947 (Ill. 18th Judicial Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty., Oct. 26, 2022), is brought against the Defendant to stop the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's and the proposed Class's sensitive, private, and personal biometric data. While most establishments and employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), the Defendant, upon information and belief, mandated and required that employees have hand(s) scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised--biometrics are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Defendant's employees, including Plaintiff, to serious and irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, the Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA. Specifically, the Defendant has violated and continues to violate BIPA because it did not and, upon information and belief, continues not to: Properly inform Plaintiff and others similarly situated in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their hand scan(s) were being collected, stored, disseminated and used, as required by BIPA; Provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated individuals' hand scan(s), as required by BIPA; Receive a written release from Plaintiff and others similarly situated to collect, store, disseminate or otherwise use their hand scan(s), as required by BIPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at its location in Illinois. Midtronics, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with places of business in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. Adam Florek, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Phone: 314-833-4825 Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com plesko@peifferwolf.com aflorek@peifferwolf MNS LTD: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MNS, LTD. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MNS, LTD. d/b/a ABC Stores, Case No. 1:22-cv-09167 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. MNS, LTD. doing business as ABC Stores -- http://www.abcstores.com/ -- is a chain of convenience stores based in Honolulu.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com MONDELEZ INT'L: Claims in Lee Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, C.K. LEE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC. and MONDELEZ GLOBAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-1127 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismisses the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. The Defendants move to dismiss the class-action complaint of Plaintiff Lee for failure to state a claim for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In the alternative, to the extent that the Complaint survives their 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, they move for an order striking the Plaintiff's class allegations either in their entirety or, if the Court does not do so, to strike his allegations brought pursuant to laws other than the law of New York. The Defendants also move to dismiss on the grounds that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) with respect to the claims of non-New York putative class members and that the Plaintiff lacks standing to seek injunctive relief. Mondelez manufactures, packages, distributes, advertises, and markets chocolate products sold under the brand name "Green & Black": "Green & Black's Organic Dark Chocolate" and "Green & Black's Pure Dark Chocolate" (the "Products"). Mondelez International specializes in the manufacture of candy and chocolate. Mondelez Global, a subsidiary of Mondelez International, distributes the Products. The Products include variants that advertise specific percentages of "cacao" on their front label, such as 60%, 70%, and 85% cacao. The ingredients list on the back labels, however, does not refer to cacao. Instead, the list refers to chocolate, chocolate liquor, cocoa butter, or cocoa. The front labels also announce that the Products are "made with the finest Trinitario cacao beans" or "fine Trinitario cacao beans." Mr. Lee alleges that the Defendants' Products had significantly less value than was warranted by their representations because they did not deliver the qualities promised. Those misrepresentations misled him as to the Products' contents, depriving him of the benefit of his bargain and injuring him in an amount up to the purchase price. He further alleges that he would not have been willing to pay the sum he paid had he known the Product was mislabeled. In contrast to the Products at issue, Lee also points to a chocolate bar product from a different chocolate manufacturer that represents on the front label that the product is made from "cocoa," not "cacao." The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on Feb. 9, 2022. On April 18, 2022, the Defendants filed their motion to dismiss. On June 27, 2022, the Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss and on the Defendants' motion for a stay of discovery. It granted the motion for a stay from the bench. The Plaintiff brings three claims against the Defendants: (1) violation of New York General Business Law ("GBL") Section 349 on behalf the New York class or alternatively on behalf of a Nationwide Class in conjunction with substantively similar consumer protection laws of non-New York states and the District of Columbia; (2) violation of GBL Section 350 on behalf of the New York class or alternatively on behalf of a Nationwide Class in conjunction with substantively similar consumer protection laws of non-New York states and the District of Columbia, and (3) common law fraud on behalf of a New York class or alternatively on behalf of a Nationwide Class in conjunction with substantively similar common law of non-New York states and the District of Columbia. The Defendants make two arguments for why the Complaint fails to state a claim for relief. First, they argue that the Plaintiff's claims are expressly preempted under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), as amended by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. Second, they argue that the Complaint fails to state a claim because the product labels are accurate and no reasonable consumer would be deceived because the products are made with cacao. In addition, the Defendants argue that the Court should strike the Plaintiff's class allegations because consumer purchases are driven by many individualized factors; that the nationwide class allegations should be stricken because the Complaint does not plead an independent cause of action for these laws; that the Plaintiff lacks standing to seek injunctive relief due to the lack of a future injury; that there is no personal jurisdiction over them for the claims of non-New York class members; and that that the Court should not afford leave to amend the Complaint. Judge Liman grants the motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims without leave to amend. Initially, he opines that the distinction between "cacao" and "cocoa" falls outside the scope of the preemption clause. Therefore, even if the Defendants' Products comply with the "standard of identity" regulations, the Plaintiff's claim would not be preempted if it does not relate to a subject matter considered by the FDA. The subject matter of "cacao" versus "cocoa" is one such subject matter. There is no evidence that subject was considered by the FDA. Judge Liman then agrees with the Defendants that the Plaintiff does not allege anything with respect to what a reasonable consumer might believe as to the word "cacao" and its level of processing. He says the Complaint contains no allegations that support that a reasonable consumer would believe that "cacao" is associated with "unprocessed cacao." Even assuming that a consumer would understand the reference to "cacao" to be to the raw ingredient, Judge Liman says the Plaintiff would have failed to plead falsity. Judge Liman also finds that the Plaintiff has not adequately alleged fraud and has not alleged a misrepresentation of fact or omission. The Plaintiff has failed to allege a misrepresentation of fact or omission because he has failed to allege that a reasonable consumer would have associated the word "cacao" with "unprocessed cacao." He also has not adequately alleged scienter under Rule 9(b) for a common law fraud claim. Moreover, Judge Liman opines that the Plaintiff does not have standing to assert injunctive relief. He says the Plaintiff's future injury is purely hypothetical and thus does not suffice to provide standing for injunctive relief. The Plaintiff does not otherwise allege that he will buy the products again or is obligated to do so. Finally, Judge Liman declines to grant leave to amend. He holds that leave to amend is futile based on the Court's findings on the "% cacao" label all indicate that no reasonable consumer would be misled by the statement of "cacao" on the front label to believe that the product contained "raw cacao" or cacao possessing the medicinal qualities of raw cacao. Further, any argument regarding leave to amend has been expressly waived by the Plaintiff by failing to raise it in his opposition brief. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. No. 19. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrajy3f9 from Leagle.com. MOTORSPORT.TV DIGITAL: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Motorsport.TV Digital, LLC. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Motorsport.TV Digital, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09233 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Motorsport.tv -- https://motorsport.tv/ -- is a leading video platform aiming at being the global hub for the different motor racing and motoring communities around the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (917) 796-7437 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com NAVY FEDERAL: Anderson Suit Removed From State Court to E.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled LATOYA ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. STK-CV-UBC-2022-7941, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on October 21, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01891-KJM-AC to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract, negligence, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act. Navy Federal Credit Union is a global credit union headquartered in Vienna, Virginia. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Joshua H. Lerner, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1 Front Street, Ste. 3500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (628) 235-1124 Facsimile: (628) 235-1001 E-mail: joshua.lerner@wilmerhale.com - and - Karin Dryhurst, Esq. Donna M. Farag, Esq. Jennifer Thompson, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 663-6000 Facsimile: (202) 663-6363 E-mail: karin.dryhurst@wilmerhale.com donna.farag@wilmerhale.com jennifer.thompson@wilmerhale.com - and - Urvashi Malhotra, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 2600 El Camino Real, Ste. 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: (650) 858-6077 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 E-mail: urvashi.malhotra@wilmerhale.com NCB MANAGEMENT: Keeton Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NCB Management Services Inc. The case is styled as Hannah Keeton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NCB Management Services Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01368-NAD (N.D. Ala., Oct. 26, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. NCB Management Services Inc. -- https://www.ncbi.com/ -- is a debt collection agency primarily focused on retail, healthcare, student loans, and government debt.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David I. Schoen, Esq. 2800 Zelda Road, Suite 100-6 Montgomery, AL 36106 Phone: (334) 395-6611 Fax: (917) 591-7586 Email: DSchoen593@aol.com NEW YORK, NY: Aguilo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the City of New York, et al. The case is styled as Roxana Aguilo, Steven Harris, Christina Gayle, John Pagan, Patricia Taveras, Domingo Bencosme, on behalf of themselves v. City of New York, New York City Police Department, Case No. 1:22-cv-09204-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. New York City -- https://www.nyc.gov/ -- comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clara R Smit, Esq. 100 Horizon Center Boulevard Hamilton, NJ 08691 Phone: (732) 843-6600 Email: crsmitlaw@aol.com NEWREZ LLC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Cardin Class Suit Partly Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GREGG T. CARDIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWREZ LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-03350 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Franklin U. Valderrama of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants in part and denies in part Shellpoint's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Mr. Cardin brings the action against Shellpoint, a mortgage servicer, asserting that Shellpoint improperly bought and charged Cardin for property insurance on his home mortgage loan knowing that Cardin already maintained his own insurance. He asserts a claim on behalf of himself and members of a putative class for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (Count I), as well as individual claims for breach of contract (Count II); violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. (Count III); and unjust enrichment (Count IV). Mr. Cardin owned the property located at 1550 S. Blue Island Ave, Unit 810, Chicago, Illinois, which was his principal residence. Having obtained a mortgage secured by the property, he refinanced the loan in 2014 with Quicken Loans. After the refinancing, Ditech Financial LLC serviced the loan until November 2019 when Shellpoint, a mortgage servicer that services mortgage loans nationwide, "acquired and/or began servicing the subject loan." Although Cardin was contractually current on the payments when Shellpoint took over the loan, Shellpoint treated the loan as being in default. When Shellpoint bought the forced-place insurance in approximately April 2020, Cardin was in the process of selling the property. The improper insurance charges increased the amount of money needed to pay off Cardin's loan and effectuate a sale. Under mounting pressure to complete the sale of the property and with Shellpoint's representations regarding a forthcoming refund, Cardin "reluctantly" paid the inflated amounts sought in the May, June, and July 2020 mortgage statements. A closing for the sale of the property took place on July 21, 2020. And, after the July closing, Shellpoint erroneously demanded an additional $4,297.66 for accrued interest on the loan. Under duress to formally complete the sale of the subject property, Cardin paid the alleged outstanding interest. Shellpoint moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Judge Valderrama denies the motion as to Counts I, II, and III and grants as to Count IV, which is dismissed without prejudice. As an initial matter, Judge Valderrama opines that at this stage, Cardin's allegations that he repeatedly disputed the insurance charges in writing are sufficient to allege that he notified Shellpoint of a breach and provided an opportunity to cure, thus satisfying the notice and cure provision. As to the breach of contract claim (Count II), Judge Valderrama holds that Shellpoint cites no authority for the proposition that refunds like the one it issued after the filing of the complaint suffice to moot damages that existed at the time the complaint was filed. Discovery may shed further light on the facts relevant to this argument, but at this stage, he finds Cardin's breach of contract claim is not moot for lack of damages. However, Judge Valderrama agrees with Shellpoint regarding the unjust enrichment (Count IV). He opines that Cardin's unjust enrichment claim is only brought in the alternative to the breach of contract claim, and the Court has denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the breach of contract count. Accordingly, because the breach of contract claim survives the motion to dismiss, Cardin's motion to amend is denied and the unjust enrichment claim is dismissed without prejudice. In Count I, Cardin brings a claim on behalf of himself and the putative class pursuant to the ICFA. Taken together, Judge Valderrama finds that the allegations in the complaint describe alleged unfair or deceptive acts that caused Cardin actual damage. Accordingly, Cardin has sufficiently pled actual damage to state an ICFA claim. In Count III, Cardin brings an individual claim for violations of the FDCPA. Judge Valderrama holds that he must accept Cardin's well-pleaded facts and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. Shellpoint cites no case law establishing that an acquired debt like the subject is not considered to be in default, nor any case that treats a mortgage statement which cites a forthcoming due date as evidence that a loan is considered current. Discovery may shed further light on the status of the debt in November 2019 and whether Shellpoint considered it current at that time. But at the motion to dismiss stage and based on Cardin's allegations, Judge Valderrama finds the complaint sufficiently states a claim pursuant to the FDCPA. Judge Valderrama further finds that Cardin's class claims may fail at the certification stage, but they survive the present motion to dismiss. He says it is practical to wait until Cardin moves for class certification and the parties provide in-depth analysis of the issues relevant to class certification. In addition, Cardin sufficiently alleges that he provided proof of insurance and states his ICFA claim with particularity. Shellpoint cites no case striking similar class claims, and the only case it does cite is easily distinguishable because the plaintiff there "did not secure her own insurance." Finally, Judge Valderrama opines that Cardin has sufficiently established standing to bring a claim under the FDCPA. Cardin actually paid the insurance charges to Shellpoint, and had not recovered any of that money when he filed the lawsuit. And even if he has been repaid the full amount of monetary damages, Cardin alleges that Shellpoint's false credit reporting to the credit bureaus destroyed his credit score and credit worthiness. For the foregoing reasons, Shellpoint's motion to dismiss is denied as to Counts I, II, and III and granted as to Count IV, which is dismissed without prejudice. The stay of class discovery previously ordered by the Court is lifted. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3wejrhpv from Leagle.com. OCEAN CREST SEAFOODS: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ocean Crest Seafoods, Inc. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ocean Crest Seafoods, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09198 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ocean Crest Seafoods, Inc. operates as a wholesaler of seafood products. The Company offers fish, fillets, and seafood products to supermarkets, restaurants, and retailers.[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 OSCEOLA CHEESE: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Osceola Cheese Company, Inc. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Osceola Cheese Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09200 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Osceola Cheese -- https://osceolacheese.com/ -- is a Cheese shop established in 1944.[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 PASHA GROUP: Arreguin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Pasha Group, et al. case is styled as Ana Rosa Arreguin, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Pasha Group, Does 1-20, Case No. 34-2022-00328927-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 26, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." The Pasha Group -- https://www.pashagroup.com/ -- operates as an international logistics and transportation services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949-379-6250 PAULA DEEN VENTURES: Ligon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paula Deen Ventures, LLC. The case is styled as Denette J. Ligon, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Paula Deen Ventures, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09179 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Paula Deen Ventures -- https://www.pauladeen.com/ -- operates a company with interests in food media, restaurants and food 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 PHYSICIAN'S BUSINESS: Martin Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Physician's Business Office, Inc. The case is styled as Twila Martin, Joni Davis, on behalf of herself and her minor child; S. W., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Physician's Business Office, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00493 (S.D.W. Va., Oct. 27, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Breach of Contract. Physician's Business Office -- https://www.physiciansbusinessoffice.com/ -- is a management services organization which provides administrative practice support to a wide variety of medical specialties.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark E. Troy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 222 Capitol Street, Suite 200A Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 345-1122 Fax: (304) 414-5692 Email: mtroy@forthepeople.com R&G BRENNER: Lurie Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Lurie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. R&G BRENNER INCOME TAX, LLC, R&G BRENNER TAX CENTERS INC., SUMMIT CONSULTING INC., APEX PLANNING INC., R&G BRENNER INCOME TAX CONSULTANTS, BENJAMIN K. BRENNER, and CAROL BRENNER, Case No. 1:22-cv-06511 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2022), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to recover unpaid overtime compensation and for other relief. The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation for any hours that she worked in excess of 40 hours each week. The Defendants were aware of the hours that Plaintiff worked each shift but still failed to pay her properly. The Defendants did not provide the Plaintiff with a complete and accurate wage notice when she was hired, or at any time thereafter, as required by NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a tax preparer. R&G BRENNER operates tax preparation offices in the counties of New York, Kings, Queens, Bronx, Rockland, Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith E. Williams, Esq. THE NHG LAW GROUP, P.C. 4242 Merrick Road Massapequa, New York 11758 Phone: 516.228.5100 Email: keith@nhglaw.com nhglaw@nhglaw.com RA SUSHI: Faces Canada Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages for Servers ----------------------------------------------------------------- CORRINE CANADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RA SUSHI HOLDINGS CORP. and RA SUSHI ATLANTA MIDTOWN CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04226-LMM (N.D. Ga., October 24, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a server at RA Sushi restaurant in Atlanta, Georgia from approximately January 2020 to April 2020. RA Sushi Holding Corp. is an operator of a nationwide chain of restaurants with the name RA Sushi, doing business in Georgia. RA Sushi Atlanta Midtown Corp. is an operator of a nationwide chain of restaurants with the name RA Sushi, doing business in Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arnold J. Lizana, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III 1175 Peachtree Street NE, 10th Floor Atlanta, GA 30361 Telephone: (404) 207-1559 Facsimile: (470) 231-0672 - and - Don J. Foty, Esq. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com - and - Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Jones Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Real Time Resolutions, Inc. The case is styled as Percy Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-01113-TJM-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Real Time Resolutions -- https://www.realtimeresolutions.com/ -- is a full-service loan servicing and recovery company specializing in mortgage, auto, student, credit card, and other consumer loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert T. Yusko, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com REASONABLE HEALTH: Alexander Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reasonable Health Coverage LLC. The case is styled as Cathy Alexander, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Reasonable Health Coverage LLC doing business as: Reasonable Insurance Group, Case No. 2:22-cv-14364-AMC (S.D. Fla., Oct. 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Reasonable Health Coverage LLC doing business as Reasonable Insurance Group -- https://reasonableinsurancegroup.com/ -- is an health insurance brokerage, based in Broward County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammad Reza Kazerouni, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (949) 612-9999 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: mike@kazlg.com - and - Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 301 E. Bethany Home Road. Ste. C-195 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: ryan@kazlg.com RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Wilson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Recreational Equipment, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Alexander Wilson, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Recreational Equipment, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2022-00328937-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 26, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Recreational Equipment, Inc., commonly known as REI -- https://www.rei.com/ -- is an American retail and outdoor recreation services corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Orlando J. Villalba, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park E., Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533 Phone: 310-712-8002 Email: Orlando.Villalba@capstonelawyers.com RESURGENT CAPITAL: Castic Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital Services L.P. The case is styled as Cathy Castic, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Resurgent Capital Services L.P., Case No. 3:22-cv-02497-SMY (S.D. Ill., Oct. 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Resurgent Capital Services, LP -- https://www.resurgent.com/ -- provides financial services. The Company manages debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers.[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 RESURGENT CAPITAL: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital Services L.P. The case is styled as Eve Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Resurgent Capital Services L.P., LVNV Funding LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-03731-TMC (D.S.C., Oct. 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Resurgent Capital Services, LP -- https://www.resurgent.com/ -- provides financial services. The Company manages debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dawn Marie McCraw, Esq. PRICE LAW GROUP APC 8245 North 85th Way Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Phone: (818) 600-5585 Email: dawn@pricelawgroup.com ROADMASTER DRIVERS: Meehan Sues Over Engagement in Deceptive Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bradley Meehan, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. ROADMASTER DRIVERS SCHOOL OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC. and ROADMASTER DRIVERS SCHOOL, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-04299-JMG (E.D. Pa., Oct. 26, 2022), is brought for damages arising from the Defendants' violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, breach of warranties and for unjust enrichment, as a result of the Defendants engagement in a pervasive, deceptive scheme, whereby Roadmaster induced customers into utilizing Defendants' services based on deceptive and inaccurate documents and provided documents to its customers that reflected services that were not actually provided. Students, including Plaintiff, enrolled at Roadmaster contracted for, and expected to receive, the quality CDL training they were promised in the advertising and marketing Roadmaster disseminated. Roadmaster marketed and represented that it had the required teachers, training, protocols, and government certifications to train and teach students in the manner sufficient to obtain a CDL. On July 15, 2022, graduates of Roadmaster, including the Plaintiff, received a letter from various government entities, including PennDOT, informing them that their CDL licenses were improperly issued, and that Roadmaster had not complied with governmental regulations, and that students (like Plaintiff) must retake their CDL exam or would lose their license. The Defendants breached their contractual obligations to students, like the Plaintiff, and were unjustly enriched because students paid for specific services they never received and were required to spend monies for services that were not provided. The Defendants failed to provide CDL testing that complied with governmental regulations. Students such as the Plaintiff were harmed as a result of the Defendants' actions, including the loss of income, lost revenue, lost jobs, and other harm associated with not receiving the services they paid for. Through this lawsuit the Plaintiff seeks, for himself and Class members, the Defendants' disgorgement of tuition and fees paid to it, proportionate to the damages suffered by the Plaintiff and members of the Class, including the loss of income, lost revenue, lost jobs, and other harm associated with not receiving the services they paid for. The Plaintiff also seeks damages relating to the Defendants' passing off their Commercial Driving License training program as complete and capable of achieving a valid CDL license for students who complete the program, says the complaint. The Plaintiff paid approximately $7,000 in tuition, fees and various other costs to the Defendants for the training program. Roadmaster Drivers School, Inc. owns, operates, and manages several CDL Training Schools across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 735-8600 Fax: (215) 940-8000 Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 Email: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com ROCKET MORTGAGE: Class Certification Decision in Alig Suit Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, PHILLIP ALIG; SARA J. ALIG; ROXANNE SHEA; DANIEL V. SHEA, Individually and on behalf of a class of persons, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC, f/k/a Quicken Loans Inc.; AMROCK INC., f/k/a Title Source, Inc., d/b/a Title Source Inc. of West Virginia, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellants, and DEWEY V. GUIDA; APPRAISALS UNLIMITED, INC.; RICHARD HYETT, Defendants. THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION, Amicus Supporting Appellant, Case No. 19-1059 (4th Cir.), the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacates its order affirming in part and vacating in part the district court's class certification and summary judgment order. The Plaintiffs are a class of all West Virginia citizens who refinanced a total of 2,769 mortgages with Quicken Loans from 2004 to 2009, for whom Quicken Loans obtained appraisals from the Defendant appraisal management company Title Source using a request form that included an estimate of value of the subject property. The district court certified the proposed class and granted summary judgment to the Plaintiffs on three claims: unconscionable inducement under West Virginia Code Section 46A-2-121(a)(1); breach of contract; and conspiracy. It awarded a total of more than $10.6 million in damages. Last year, the Fourth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's judgment. It concluded that the Plaintiffs had standing because all of the class members had paid "for independent appraisals that they never received." It further concluded that the "financial harm" involved in paying for a product that was "never received" was "'a classic and paradigmatic form of injury in fact.'" Three months later, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021), which addressed Article III standing in the context of a class-action case. Following TransUnion, it is clear that, to recover damages from Quicken Loans, "every class member must have Article III standing" "for each claim that they press," requiring proof that they "suffered concrete harm" from the challenged conduct. The Defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, arguing that the Plaintiffs lack standing under TransUnion. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court granted the Defendants' petition, vacated the Fourth Circuit's judgment, and remanded the case "for further consideration in light of" that case. The Fourth Circuit ordered supplemental briefing and held oral argument. Having considered the parties' submissions, it concludes that the district court should apply TransUnion to the facts of this case in the first instance. Accordingly, it vacates and remands for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3wtshu from Leagle.com. ARGUED: William M. Jay -- wjay@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Deepak Gupta -- deepak@guptawessler.com -- GUPTA WESSLER PLLC, Washington, D.C., for the Appellees. ON BRIEF: Helgi C. Walker -- hwalker@gibsondunn.com -- Jesenka Mrdjenovic -- jmrdjenovic@gibsondunn.com -- Andrew G.I. Kilberg -- akilberg@gibsondunn.com -- Washington, D.C., Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Los Angeles, California; Thomas M. Hefferon -- thefferon@goodwinlaw.com -- Brooks R. Brown -- bbrown@goodwinlaw.com -- Jaime A. Santos -- jsantos@goodwinlaw.com -- Keith Levenberg -- klevenberg@goodwinlaw.com -- Washington, D.C., Edwina B. Clarke -- eclarke@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellants. John W. Barrett -- JBARRETT@BAILEYGLASSER.COM -- Jonathan R. Marshall -- JMARSHALL@BAILEYGLASSER.COM -- Charleston, West Virginia, Patricia M. Kipnis -- PKIPNIS@BAILEYGLASSER.COM -- BAILEY & GLASSER LLP, Cherry Hill, New Jersey; Gregory A. Beck -- greg@guptawessler.com -- Linnet Davis-Stermitz -- linnet@guptawessler.com -- GUPTA WESSLER PLLC, Washington, D.C.; Jason E. Causey, James G. Bordas, Jr., BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees. John M. Masslon II -- jmasslon@wlf.org -- Cory L. Andrews -- candrews@wlf.org -- WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Washington Legal Foundation. Jennifer B. Dickey, Tyler S. Badgley, UNITED STATES CHAMBER LITIGATION CENTER, Washington, D.C.; Matthew A. Fitzgerald -- mfitzgerald@mcguirewoods.com -- McGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Amicus The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Claims in Wesley Defective Ranges Suit Trimmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KATHY WESLEY, ALESIA CHARLES, JOSEPH D'ANDREA, and JO PEACOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-18629 (D.N.J.), Judge John Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: a. grants in part and denies in part Samsung's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, to Strike the Class Allegations; and b. denies the Plaintiffs' cross-motion for leave to amend. The putative class action lawsuit alleges that the Defendant knew, but failed to disclose, that an oven temperature sensor in some of its gas and electronic ranges was defective. The Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Samsung gas and electric ranges from various authorized resellers, such as BestBuy and Sears. After purchasing the ranges, the Plaintiffs began to experience problems with the temperature settings of the ovens and/or stovetop components of the ranges, as the ovens and/or stovetops would not maintain the set temperature. They attempted to contact Samsung to have the ranges repaired, but the repairs were either unsuccessful or the Plaintiffs were unable to obtain repair services. The Plaintiffs' ranges all contain an "oven temperature sensor bearing component model number DG32-00002B," which they allege is defective and is the cause of the various temperature problems. They contend that at least 87 Samsung gas and electric range models contain (or contained) this defective sensor. They further allege that Samsung knew of, and failed to disclose the defect, and continues to manufacture and sell ranges with the defective sensor. Had the Plaintiffs known of the defect, they would not have purchased their ranges or would have paid a significantly lower price. The Plaintiffs filed the action on Dec. 9, 2020, and filed its First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on March 3, 2021. Samsung moved to dismiss and on Dec. 3, 2021, the Court granted the motion in part and afforded the Plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint. Based on an amended scheduling order, the due date for the SAC was extended to April 5, 2022. On April 4, 2022, the parties submitted a joint stipulation indicating that the Plaintiffs intended to file a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add new plaintiffs and requesting that the Court extends their SAC deadline until after they could file, and the Court could decide, the Plaintiffs' planned motion for leave to amend. The Court did not approve the stipulation. On April 5, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the SAC. The SAC includes four Plaintiffs who bring allegations individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated: Kathy Wesley (Florida), Jo Peacock (Florida), Alesia Charles (California), and Joseph D'Andrea (New Jersey). On May 16, 2022, Samsung moved to dismiss the SAC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or in the alternative, moved to strike the class allegations. The Plaintiffs filed their opposition and cross-motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") on June 21, 2022. The SAC asserts claims for breach of express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability on behalf of the New Jersey and Florida subclasses (Count I and Count II, respectively), and violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act claim and a California Consumers Legal Remedies Act claim on behalf of the California subclasses (Count III and Count IV, respectively). The SAC omits the fraud claim, MMWA claim, most of the state consumer protection claims, and some of the express and implied warranty claims that were raised in the FAC. Samsung first argues that the Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed because they have not plausibly alleged a "defect" in their ranges. It then asserts that their amended allegations do not support an express warranty claim or an implied warranty claim. Next, Samsung contends that the Plaintiffs' SAC fails to cure the Song-Beverly Act claim and California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") claim. Finally, it argues that even assuming they could state a viable claim, the class allegations should be stricken because they fail to plausibly allege a common defect, precluding certification. The Plaintiffs seek leave to amend to file a TAC to add four additional Plaintiffs who propose to assert breach of express and implied warranty claims under Illinois, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington law. Judge Vazquez finds that the Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged a defect. He says the Plaintiffs must plausibly assert what is actually defective about the temperature sensor. Indeed, their other allegations (from the repair technicians and on-line reviews) attribute the defect, in whole or in part, to other components. These other allegations undercut the plausibility of their claim that it is the sensor that is defective. Judge Vazquez then dismisses Count I because in addition to failing to adequately plead a defect, the New Jersey and Florida subclasses did not sufficiently allege that Samsung was contacted within the one-year warranty period, and the Florida Plaintiffs also failed to adequately allege reliance. He finds that because he cannot determine from the SAC whether the Plaintiffs contacted Samsung within the one-year warranty period, the breach of express warranty claims are not sufficiently pled. Lastly, with respect to its "design defect" argument, he says Samsung's argument does not provide adequate grounds for dismissal. Samsung's arguments as to Count II fail as well, Judge Vazquez opines. Nevertheless, due to the defect ruling, he dismisses this claim. He holds that the factual allegations that he relied on in finding that D'Andrea (New Jersey) and Wesley (Florida) sufficiently alleged unmerchantability remain the same. Judge Vazquez also dismisses Count III due to his defect ruling, but otherwise finds that it was sufficiently pled. He opines that Samsung fails to point to language from the California Supreme Court which calls the effect of Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 285, 295 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009), into question. It similarly fails to point to other California Appellate Court decisions that have questioned Mexia or reached a different result. Turning to Samsung's request to dismiss or strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations, Judge Vazquez opines that because the Plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing of predominance by referring to a series of common factual and legal issues arising out of Samsung's conduct, he declines to strike the allegations on these grounds. For similar reasons, because a determination as to whether the class definition encompasses persons who have no viable cause of action should be made with the benefit of a full record, he declines to strike the allegations on these grounds as well. Accordingly, Samsung's motion to strike the class action allegations is denied as premature. Finally, in light of the Court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' SAC for failure to plausibly plead a defect, Judge Vazquez denies the Plaintiffs' cross-motion for leave to amend as futile. Nevertheless, because Rule 16(b)(4) and Rule 15(a)(2) are otherwise satisfied, if they can cure the defect allegations, the Plaintiffs may include the proposed new plaintiffs in the amended complaint. The Plaintiffs have 30 days to file another amended complaint, if it so chooses, consistent with Judge Vazquez's Opinion. If they fail to file a third amended complaint, the dismissal will be with prejudice. This is the last time that the Court will grant their leave to amend. An appropriate Order accompanies the Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/47p53tyw from Leagle.com. SHORTBOXED LLC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shortboxed LLC. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Shortboxed LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09188 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Shortboxed -- https://shortboxed.com/ -- is an application to discover, buy, and sell collectible comic books.[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 SIX FLAGS: Mack Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Danielle Mack, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, Six Flags Great Adventure, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-06292-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., Oct. 26, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Labor Litigation. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation is an American amusement park corporation, headquartered in Arlington, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Justin Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC Twining Office Center, Suite 211 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 Email: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com STARRY GROUP: Kinard Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE KINARD and ISAIAS HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STARRY GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 653970/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., October 24, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the New York Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to give the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees advance written notice of their termination because of a mass layoff or plant closing, which was effectuated by the Defendant. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, all back pay, benefits or the value thereof, and penalties available to them under the N.Y. WARN Act. Starry Group Holdings, Inc. is a fixed wireless broadband Internet service provider based in Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810 Telephone: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com STATE FARM: M.D. Georgia Dismisses Cudd Suit Without Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Clay D. Land of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division, grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, JARRETT CUDD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-CV-217 (CDL) (M.D. Ga.). In this putative class action, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant breached its insurance contract with him when it initially evaluated the actual cash value of his covered total loss vehicle using a formula that underestimates that value. The disputed controversy is whether the Defendant breached its insurance contract with the Plaintiff because the method it used to evaluate the amount to which he was entitled was flawed. State Farm insured Cudd under a standard insurance policy that provided coverage for damage to an insured vehicle. That policy provides State Farm with an option when presented with an insured claim. It may pay either the repair cost minus any applicable deductible or the actual cash value of the covered vehicle minus any applicable deductible. The policy does not define "actual cash value." Instead, it contemplates that the parties will negotiate an agreement as to that amount. Mr. Cudd alleges that State Farm handled his claim consistent with its normal pattern and practice as follows. If State Farm determines that the vehicle's repair cost would exceed its value, State Farm declares the vehicle a "total loss" and pursues the actual cash value option. To calculate a totaled vehicle's actual cash value, State Farm relies on a report prepared by a third-party vendor, Audatex. State Farm declared Cudd's vehicle a total loss in May 2021. Audatex compared Cudd's vehicle to four comparable vehicles for sale. For each comparable vehicle, Audatex reduced its advertised price by the typical negotiation deduction, which resulted in an adjusted price that was 8% or 9% lower than the asking price and which Cudd alleges reduced his "ultimate payment from State Farm by $670.25." Mr. Cudd then filed this action without notifying State Farm that he disagreed with State Farm's calculation of the actual cash value of his vehicle, without any attempt to reach an agreement as to the actual cash value, and without providing State Farm with an opportunity to request an appraisal. After Cudd filed the present action, State Farm requested that they pursue the appraisal process provided in the policy, but Cudd refused. Mr. Cudd claims that State Farm breached the insurance contract and was unjustly enriched by applying the "negotiation deduction." On behalf of himself and other putative class members, he seeks monetary damages, a declaration that the "typical" negotiation deduction violates the policy and a Georgia insurance regulation, and attorneys' fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. Section 13-6-11. Judge Land explains that it is undisputed that Cudd failed to allege the following in his complaint: that he notified State Farm that he disagreed with its actual cash value calculation, that he requested an appraisal before initiating this action, and that he provided State Farm with a meaningful opportunity to invoke the policy's appraisal process. It also appears undisputed that Cudd could not have made these allegations in good faith because he failed to do any of these things, and in fact, after he filed this action, he refused State Farm's request that they pursue the appraisal process as provided for in the policy. The question for Judge Land is whether providing State Farm with a meaningful opportunity to invoke the appraisal process before filing suit is a condition precedent to filing the action. He finds that the plain and unambiguous language in the parties' contract clearly indicates that it is. An insurance policy is a contract. Judge Land concludes that although the systematic undervaluation of insureds' claims could under certain circumstances constitute a breach of the insurance contract, the Plaintiff's claim ignores another provision of the policy which provides that either party will have the right to submit any dispute as to the actual cash value of a covered loss to an appraisal process. Because this provision is a condition precedent for payment of a disputed covered loss and because the Plaintiff failed to give the Defendant the opportunity to submit this claim to an appraisal process, the Plaintiff's claims are premature. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed. Judge Land grants State Farm's motion to dismiss and dismisses the action in its entirety without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdfs37ry from Leagle.com. SWANK AUGUSTA: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Swank Augusta, LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Swank Augusta, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09166 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Swank -- https://www.shopswankco.com/ -- is a clothing and gift boutique.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com T. ROWE PRICE: Sued Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Voice Prints --------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Moore, Jr. & Cecelia Lahr, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. T. ROWE PRICE RETIREMENT PLAN SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01673-GPC-MDD (S.D. Cal., Oct. 27, 2022), is brought against the Defendant to put an end to its unlawful use, examination, and recording of the Plaintiffs' and putative Class members' biometric voice prints without express written consent. The Defendant utilizes a system that enables it to examine the voice of anyone that calls it to determine the truth or falsity of the callers' statements. The software combines audio, voice, and artificial intelligence technologies to compare the callers' voices to a comprehensive database of recordings and metrics. The system the Defendant uses allows it to authenticate or refute the true identity of callers, among other things. The system contains voice recognition software that creates a biometric voice print of each caller. The system then allows Defendant to analyze the callers' voice prints to determine the truth or falsity of their statements. The Defendant does this for anyone that calls it, including Plaintiffs and Class members. The Defendant does not obtain "express written consent" from any callers before examining and analyzing their voices. Recognizing the need to protect its residents from situations like these, California enacted the California Invasion of Privacy Act, to regulate entities that examine or record California residents' voice prints or voice stress patterns without obtaining the residents' express written consent first. Despite this law, Defendant disregards California residents' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully examines or records their voices in violation of CIPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have called the Defendant and spoke with representatives on the telephone. The Defendant is a corporation formed in Maryland with its principal place of business located in Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: 866-219-3343 Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 222-7429 Email: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com TENNESSEE VALLEY: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tennessee Valley Pecan Company, LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Tennessee Valley Pecan Company, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09244 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tennessee Valley Pecan Company -- https://tnvalleypecan.com/ -- offers gourmet pecans, Bushytail Coffee, and gifts perfect for any occasion.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com THIRD EYE COMICS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Third Eye Comics, Inc. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Third Eye Comics, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09246 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Third Eye Comics -- https://thirdeyecomics.com/ -- is the friendly neighborhood comic shops for Comics, Records, Games, Toys, and more in the Maryland, DC & Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com THREE SISTER'S: Fails to Properly Pay Dancers, King Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASTORIA KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THREE SISTER'S ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and NIANNA WRIGHT, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04235-AT (N.D. Ga., October 24, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a dancer at Gentlemen's Club in Atlanta, Georgia from 2018 until November of 2021. Three Sister's Entertainment, Inc. is an owner and operator of an adult entertainment facility named Gentlemen's Club, located in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew W. Herrington, Esq. DELONG, CALDWELL, BRIDGERS, FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2650 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 979-3150 E-mail: matthew.herrington@dcbflegal.com - and - Colby Qualls, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: colby@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com THRIVING BRANDS: Soldevilla Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Dianne Soldevilla, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Thriving Brands, LLC, Henkel Corporation, Case No. 0:21-cv-62573 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on Oct. 26, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01362-OAW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Thriving Brands -- https://thriving-brands.com/ -- is a consumer products company focused on the development and rejuvenation of consumer brands across the globe.[BN] TOMMY HILFIGER: Wiretaps Electronic Communications, Licea Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE LICEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOMMY HILFIGER U.S.A., INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2022-00042365-CU-MT-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., October 24, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, Tommy Hilfiger secretly wiretaps the private conversations of everyone who communicates through the chat feature at www.tommy.com and allows third party to eavesdrop on such communications in real time and during transmission to harvest data for financial gain. Tommy Hilfiger does not obtain visitors' consent to either the wiretapping or the eavesdropping, says the suit. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc. is the owner and operator of the website, www.tommy.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com TRAVEL GUARD: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert Bid Schedule --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMIKA MILLER and JULIANNE CHUANROONG, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, v. TRAVEL GUARD GROUP, INC., AIG TRAVEL, INC., AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. (d/b/a/AIG), and NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., Case No. 3:21-cv-09751-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate to an extension of the schedule for the Plaintiffs' class certification motion. The Plaintiffs have been seeking discovery from Defendants since serving requests for production on March 21, 2022, and sending initial drafts of a proposed protective order and ESI order on March 17, 2022. After months of negotiation, the ESI order was finally entered August 3, 2022, and Plaintiffs received some basic ESI information on August 12, 2022. The parties have participated in multiple conferences and email exchanges regarding Defendants' discovery responses and have had certain disputes resolved by Magistrate Judge Spero. The parties are working to resolve technical issues with ESI searches and, once those search terms are finalized, the parties expect ESI document discovery to be voluminous in this case. To date, Defendants have made three document productions (on August 19, 2022, September 26, 2022, and October 21, 2022), and anticipate making additional rolling productions over the next three months. Multiple depositions will then need to occur and expert reports will need to be prepared. The parties do not believe all of these tasks can be completed pursuant to the existing schedule. In addition, the Plaintiffs' counsel have a class certification motion in another (longer pending) case that is due February 10, 2023, and do not have the resources to properly prepare both motions at the same time. The existing class certification briefing schedule also does not allow sufficient time for certain expert discovery to occur in conjunction with class certification briefing. The Defendant offers travel insurance plans. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NDrN73 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Rajiv Thairani, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com rajiv@gutridesafier.com - and - Stephen M. Raab, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 305 Broadway, 7 th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 x109 E-mail: stephen@gutridesafier.com The Defendant is represented by Matthew D. Powers, Esq. Eric A. Ormsby, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 2 Embarcadero Center, 28th FL San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 E-mail: mpowers@omm.com eormsby@omm.com TRINET HR: Huang, et al., Win Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHIQIONG HUANG, et al., v. TRINET HR III, INC., et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-02293-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Virginia M. Hernadez-Covington entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: "All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the TriNet IV Plan, at any time between September 29, 2014 through the date of judgment;" 2. appointing Plaintiffs Shiqiong Huang, Chris R. Stokowski, Everett Uhl, and Mark J. Hearon as lead Plaintiffs and class representatives; 3. dismissing Plaintiff Mary Patterson's claims without prejudice; 4. appointing Capozzi Adler, P.C., as class counsel; and 5. granting the Joint Motion for a Stay. The Court says that the TriNet IV Plaintiffs have satisfied all of Rule 23's requirements with respect to the TriNet IV Plan. According to Plaintiffs, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to adequately review the Plans' investment portfolio to ensure that each investment option was prudent, maintained certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or materially similar investment options with lower costs and/or better performance histories, and failed to control the Plans' recordkeeping expenses. TriNet is an American cloud-based professional employer organization. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DqrMOT at no extra charge.[CC] TRUE NORTH: Mullins Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Zack Mullins, Alex Wright, Mya Lynn Tinch, Amanda Delehanty, Michael Delehanty, Delvin Graham, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated v. TRUE NORTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, TRUE NORTH HOLDINGS, INC. Case No. 1:22-cv-01932 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 27, 2022), is brought for the recovery of unpaid minimum overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act as a result of the Defendants' systematic failure to pay Plaintiffs the proper overtime rate. The Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Throughout the Plaintiffs' employment, the Defendants has failed to pay her the proper overtime rate when she worked greater than 40 hours a week. the Defendants failed to pay Wright the proper overtime rate by excluding the shift premium it paid her in the calculation of overtime, thus basing the overtime rate paid to Wright on her predetermined hourly rate, rather on the regular rate. As a result of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs the proper overtime rate, the Plaintiffs has suffered damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are former and current employees of the Defendants. True North is a fuel and convenience retailer with stores located throughout Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chris Wido, Esq. SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S ATTORNEY 25825 Science Park Drive, Suite 200 Beachwood, Ohio 44122 Phone: (216) 291-4744 Fax: (216) 291-5744 Email: Chris.Wido@Spitzlawfirm.com UNITED STATES: Bid to Amend Judgment in Tanner-Brown Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LEATRICE TANNER-BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs v. DEBRA HAALAND, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-565 (RC) (D.D.C.), Judge Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and denies as moot their Motion for Leave to File Class Action Motion. Plaintiffs Leatrice Tanner-Brown and the Harvest Institute Freedman Federation, LLC ("HIFF") filed this putative class action against Defendants Debra Haaland, the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior ("Interior Department"), and Bryan Todd Newland, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Interior Department, in their official capacities, seeking an accounting relating to alleged breaches of fiduciary duties concerning land allotted to the minor children of former slaves of Native American tribes. In 1898, the United States enacted The Curtis Act, 30 Stat. 495, which allotted the land of the Five Civilized Tribes (i.e., the Seminole, Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, and Chickasaw Tribes). On May 27, 1908, the United States enacted the law that is central to this case. Section 1 of the 1908 Act removed all restrictions on land allotted to certain members of the Tribes, including allottees enrolled "as freedmen." The Plaintiffs argue that the 1908 Act did not remove restrictions from land allotted to minors. The heart of their claim lies with Section 6 of the 1908 Act. Their claim is premised on their argument that Section 6 imposed a specific fiduciary duty on the Secretary of the Interior to account for any royalties derived from leases on land allotted to minor Freedmen. On Sept. 15, 2021, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that, among other things, the Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. The Court held that the Plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to allege a concrete, particularized injury fairly traceable to the Secretary's action. On Aug. 5, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment that is at issue. Through this motion, they seek to clarify their alleged injury. According to them, the injury that gives rise to their standing is not the Secretary's "alleged mismanagement of the trust," but her failure to provide the requested accounting. Additionally, because the Plaintiffs failed to move to certify their class within the required time period, they have also filed a Motion for Leave to File a Class Action Motion. The Plaintiffs argue that the Court should alter or amend its judgment because it ignored settled principles of trust law in its July 8, 2022, dismissal order. Specifically, they contend that they cannot assert an injury sufficient to establish standing because a trust beneficiary must first receive an accounting before determining whether a trust has been mismanaged. They also assert that trust beneficiaries are entitled to an accounting regardless of whether an injury has been shown. Accordingly, they argue that the Court's July 8, 2022, order must be altered or amended to avoid manifest injustice. Judge Contreras rejects these arguments because the Plaintiffs fail to show that the 1908 Act creates a trust relationship between them and the Secretary of the Interior. Section 6 does not impose a duty on the Secretary of the Interior to provide minor allottees with an accounting, for at least two reasons. First, the language of the statute suggests that the Secretary's duties are discretionary. Second, even if the statute imposes an affirmative obligation on the Secretary to oversee the minor allottees in some capacity, it does not create a trust relationship. The 1908 Act makes no reference to any "trust" or "beneficiary," but instead refers to "guardians or curators" of the minors' estates. If Congress wishes to create a trust relationship between the Secretary and Indian tribes and/or their members, it certainly knows how to do so. Because the Plaintiffs "cannot identify a specific, applicable, trust-creating statute or regulation that the Government violated," their theory of injury must fail. For these reasons, Judge Contreras denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Because the Court has issued a final judgment on the Plaintiffs' claims, he also denies as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Class Action Motion. An order consistent with his Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3se3e8 from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: Walker's First Amended Suit Dismissed With Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, STEVEN ERIC WALKER, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, And All Actors, Agents and Elected Officials Thereof, and Does 1 through 100, Respectively, Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-31-DMS-AGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California dismisses Walker's First Amended Complaint with prejudice. On Oct. 17, 2022, Walker filed a "Request to Reopen Case Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60" and a "Request to File Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; Breach of Contract; Facial Challenge to Unconstitutional Laws." The Court construes these requests as a motion to reopen his case and a motion to file an amended complaint, respectively. Walker also submitted an "Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; Breach of Contract; General Challenge to Unconstitutional Laws; Request for Class Action Certification" as part of his motion to file an amended complaint. Mr. Walker's motions to reopen his case and bring an amended complaint rely on the Supreme Court's recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022). Based on Bruen, he requests declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and class certification. The Court accepts the FAC, as filed as part of Walker's motion. The Plaintiff is a non-prisoner proceeding pro se. On Jan. 6, 2020, he filed a Complaint against the United States, State of California, "And All Actors, Agents, and Elected Officials Thereof; And Does 1 Through 100" and a motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to proceed in In Forma Pauperis and dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim. On May 18, 2020, the Plaintiff submitted a motion for reconsideration of summary dismissal of the Complaint, which the Court denied. He appealed the Court's denial, and on July 19, 2021, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the Court. The matter presently before the Court is the Plaintiff's FAC, which contains the same or substantially similar allegations as those he had brought in his original Complaint. As an initial matter, considering the Plaintiff's IFP status, Judge Sabraw conducts a sua sponte screening of the FAC, per 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2). In the FAC, the Plaintiff alleges violations of his rights under the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, and breaches of purported contracts implied by the same amendments and constitutional oaths taken by various government officials. He describes himself as a "free, law-abiding, ordinary, tax-paying citizen of the State of California and United States of America," who "does not currently own a firearm (weapon), but seeks to acquire a weapon to keep and bear for in-home and personal self-defense and security, and other lawful purposes of personal safety." The Plaintiff continues, "but for California's and the Federal Governments' encroachments and chilling restrictions on weapons and his reasonable fear of criminal prosecution and penalties for exercising his fundamental right to self-security and safety," he would "immediately acquire and continuously possess a weapon for lawful purposes, including in-home personal security, personal safety, and self-defense." The Plaintiff seeks to represent a "very large class of citizens (approximately 330 million people) who are subject to the same encroachments, infringements, penalties, and chilling restrictions alleged." Judge Sabraw holds that the crux of the Plaintiff's FAC has not changed. The Plaintiff claims that state and federal governments improperly deny his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment because of his status as a felon and that convicted felons who abide by the law post-conviction have the right to possess firearms. The Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court have both recognized the validity of laws curtailing the right of a felon to possess firearms and Bruen has not changed the result. Consequently, the FAC is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, and the Plaintiff's requests for declaratory judgment, class certification, and injunctive relief are denied as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2hx8eu4d from Leagle.com. VILLAGE SUPER MARKET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mendez Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- YOE RODRIGUEZ-MENDEZ; and STEVEN RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VILLAGE SUPER MARKET, INC. d/b/a SHOPRITE, d/b/a SHOPRITE OF GALLOWAY, d/b/a VILLAGE SHOPRITE 473, d/b/a SHOPRITE 247, d/b/a STIRLING SHOPRITE 443; VILLAGE SUPER MARKET OF NY LLC d/b/a SHOPRITE OF BRUCKNER BLVD; VILLAGE SUPER MARKET OF NJ L P, d/b/a SHOPRITE; SHOPRITE SUPERMARKETS, INC. d/b/a SHOPRITE, d/b/a SHOPRITE 26, d/b/a SHOPRITE 225, d/b/a SHOPRITE OF ENGLISH CREEK, d/b/a SHOPRITE 191, d/b/a SHOPRITE OF HILLSBOROUGH, d/b/a SHOPRITE 296, d/b/a SHOPRITE OF MILLBURN, d/b/a SHOPRITE OF OLD BRIDGE 200, d/b/a SHOPRITE 435; WAKEFERN FOOD CORP. d/b/a SHOPRITE UNION, d/b/a SHOPRITE #643, d/b/a SHOPRITE SPRINGFIELD 294; VSM GOURMET LLC d/b/a GOURMET GARAGE; and VSM NY HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a FAIRWAY MARKET OF 74TH STREET, d/b/a FAIRWAY MARKET OF 86TH STEET, d/b/a FAIRWAY MARKET OF CHELSEA, d/b/a FAIRWAY MARKET OF KIPS BAY, d/b/a FAIRWAY MARKET OF PELHAM, Defendants, Case No. 531455/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Oct. 28, 2022) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs and class members proper wages. Plaintiff Mendez was employed by the Defendants as meat department clerk while Plaintiff Ramos was employed as service clerk. VILLAGE SUPER MARKET, INC. owns and operates supermarkets. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides prepared food, natural and organic food, seafood products, bakery products, and pharmacy services. Village Super Market serves customers in the United States. [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 WEDRIVEU INC: Bids for Judgment on Pleadings in Chatman Suit Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PRECIOUS CHATMAN, Plaintiff v. WEDRIVEU, INC, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-04849-WHO, No. 3:22-cv-04850-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: a. grants in part Chatman's Motion to Remand Case No. 3:22-CV-04850 to state court; b. grants WeDriveU's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the PAGA case; and c. grants WeDriveU's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Case no. 3:22-CV-04849. Ms. Chatman works for WeDriveU, a shuttle transportation service based in the Bay Area. She brought a putative class action and a claim arising under California's Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") in state court, alleging WeDriveU violated various California state workplace laws. She asserts that WeDriveU failed to pay proper overtime, meal period, and sick leave. She also argues WeDriveU engaged in unfair business practices and failed to pay minimum wage, provide required rest periods, provide accurate itemized wage statements, and reimburse employees for business expenses. These violations, she says, also give rise to her PAGA cause of action. Currently pending are Chatman's Motion to Remand case No. 3:22-CV-04850 ("the PAGA case") to state court; WeDriveU's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the PAGA case; and WeDriveU's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in case no. 3:22-CV-04849 ("the class action"). WeDriveU's motion for judgment on the pleadings in both cases rests on the theory that Section 301 of the Labor and Management Relations Act ("LMRA") preempts Chatman's claims pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA"). That is correct, as far as it goes, since Chatman also brings claims not encompassed by the CBA that are not preempted. Chatman opposes judgment on the pleadings and moves to remand the PAGA suit to state court. Ms. Chatman brings her putative class action claims on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated. She also brings a claim under PAGA based on the same underlying allegedly unlawful conduct. While the class complaint seeks remedies for conduct going back to April 2018, the PAGA case seeks remedies only since Feb. 11, 2021. WeDriveU removed both cases to federal court, asserting as the basis for jurisdiction preemption under Section 301 of the LMRA. The removal notices explained that Chatman is subject to the CBA, the terms of which preempt many of her claims. Alongside its motions, WeDriveU filed Requests for Judicial Notice with a copy of the CBA. Chatman does not mention the CBA in her complaints. Additionally, and as relevant to these suits, WeDriveU previously settled class claims for alleged violations of worker protection laws ("the Davis Settlement"). Unless a class member opted out, the Davis Settlement waived the rights of all WeDriveU employees to bring any claim arising before Dec. 22, 2018, related to meal periods, rest periods, minimum wage, overtime, unreimbursed business expenses, waiting time penalties, vacation and sick leave pay, maintenance of employee records, adequacy of wage statements, PAGA penalties, unfair business practices, and "any other claims alleged or which could have been alleged based on the facts alleged." The judicially approved settlement includes the names of parties that opted out and Chatman is not listed. As a preliminary matter, WeDriveU requests that Judge Orrick takes judicial notice of three documents: the CBA, the Davis settlement documents, and a declaration from the WeDriveU Chief Financial Officer that also includes Chatman's employee application. Judge Orrick takes judicial notice of a district court opinion attached to Chatman's Reply to Motion to Remand, the CBA, and the Davis Settlement documents, which includes a declaration from Tina Chiango and the Final Approval of the Davis/Timmins Class Action Settlement, the district court opinion. Because of the disputes on WeDriveU's exhibits attached to its Opposition to the Motion to Remand, and because he cannot determine the veracity of the facts at this stage without other evidence, Judge Orrick declines to judicially notice these exhibits. As an initial matter, Judge Orrick holds that Chatman's rights to overtime, meal periods, and sick leave wages arise from the CBA and not from the statute, and so are preempted by LMRA Section 301. He therefore has jurisdiction over those claims in the class complaint. Because the PAGA claims rely in part on the preempted claims, over which he has jurisdiction, Judge Orrick also has jurisdiction over the PAGA claims. Judge Orrick then finds that Chatman alleged in her complaint that she started work with WeDriveU in April 2018, and her name does not appear on the list of individuals who opted out of the settlement. Under the plain terms of the settlement, then, Chatman released all relevant claims arising before Dec. 22, 2018. Her claims in the purported class action are hence dismissed to the extent that they arise before Dec. 22, 2018. Because all of Chatman's claims related to overtime compensation, including violation of overtime laws as basis for her PAGA suit, are preempted by LMRA Section 301, Judge Orrick grants WeDriveU's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Chatman's overtime claims. He says because the section 201 claim relies on Chatman's rights to overtime compensation, it is derivative of her preempted section 510 claim and is also preempted by LMRA Section 301. The same is true of the other overtime claims. For similar reasons, Judge Orrick holds that Chatman's meal period claims under Labor Code section 226.7 are also preempted by LMRA Section 301. Because Chatman's meal period claims are preempted by Section 301, he grants WeDriveU's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the meal period claims. Because all of Chatman's sick leave claims are preempted by LMRA Section 301, Judge Orrick also grants WeDriveU's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to those claims. He finds that the underlying character of these claims rely on Chatman's underlying right to sick day wages, which itself arises from the rights conferred upon her by her CBA. For that reason, they are derivative of her section 246 claim, and therefore also preempted by the LMRA. Because Chatman's PAGA claims for civil penalties are, in part, derivative of her own overtime and meal period and sick leave claims, and those underlying claims are preempted by LMRA Section 301, the PAGA cause of action is also preempted as to those claims. Therefore, WeDriveU's motion for judgment on the pleadings in the PAGA case is granted as to the underlying claims of overtime, meal periods, and sick leave, and denied to the extent that it sought judgment based on the other underlying claims. Leave to amend would be futile because Chatman cannot assert additional facts that would change his finding. Judge Orrick dismisses those claims with prejudice. Her other contentions remain. Finally, Judge Orrick grants Chatman's Motion to Remand, in part, and remands the PAGA cause of action and its remaining underlying claims. He holds that he has supplemental jurisdiction over the PAGA case to the extent that it relies on non-preempted state law claims. But retaining jurisdiction would be inappropriate because he has dismissed all claims over which he has original jurisdiction. He also has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in the purported class action and for the same reasons, he declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. He sua sponte remands to state court the remaining non-preempted, state law claims in the class case. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Orrick grants WeDriveU's motions for partial judgment on the pleadings and grants in part Chatman's motion to remand the PAGA case. The remaining claims in both cases are remanded to the San Mateo Superior Court. Judgment will be entered accordingly. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 28, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/msrsxfzt from Leagle.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 ***