/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221115.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, November 15, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 222
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Must Submit Class Cert. Opposition by Dec. 2
ACER AMERICA: McCall Sues Over Misleading Labeling Practices
AMENIFY CORPORATION: Butterfield Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
ANB BABY NY: Forrest Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
AXE AND SLEDGE: Nahra Files Suit in C.D. California
BIKE RENTAL CENTRAL: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BIMBO BAKERIES: Operative Sched, Discovery Order Entered in Elder
BMO TRUST: Law School Gets $3.1-M Settlement in Breach Class Suit
BOOMSOURCING: Black Suit Transferred to D. Utah
BOSWORTH COMPANY: Court Tosses Dickson Collection Action Bid
CARE AT HOME: Order on Pretrial Deadlines Entered in Nqadalo
CG-HHC INC: CMP & Trial Order Entered in Williams Class Suit
CHAMPLAIN NATIONAL BANK: Noble Files Suit in N.D. New York
CHARTER FOODS: Ct. Adopts Judge Wyrick's Class Cert. Recommendation
CHERRYBO2MB INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CIMINOCARE: Goosby Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CIRCA 1886: More Time to File Class Cert. Opposition Sought
CLOSET FACTORY: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CLUBCORP USA: Wolf Suit Removed to S.D. California
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Court Adopts Proposed Discovery Plan
CORPORATION OF MERCER: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
CREDIT BUREAU: Loses Limited Discovery Bid in Kang FCRA-CCRAA Suit
CREME SHOP INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CSWS LLC: Barry Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Club Dancers
DOES: Bid for Expedited Discovery in Champion TCPA Suit Partly OK'd
DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Gile Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 9th Cir.
E. ANDRE CONSTRUCTION: Oliveira Files FLSA Suit in D. New Jersey
EMPRESS AMBULANCE: Colon Suit Removed to S.D. New York
EMPRESS AMBULANCE: Contristano Suit Removed to S.D. New York
ENDICOTT COIL COMPANY: Griffin Files FLSA Suit in N.D. New York
G. SKILL: Scheduling Order Entered in Hurd Class Action
GARDNER TRUCKING: Amezcua Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
GATEWAY DIAGNOSTIC: Marker Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
GENERAL WAX: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Compensations
GEORGE BROWN: Price Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Amended Pretrial Sched Order Entered
GUADALUPANA BAKERY: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HALLMARK CARDS: May Face Class Suit for Unsolicited Telemarketing
HONEST COMPANY: Scheduling Order Entered in Dixon Class Suit
HP INC: Cepelak, et al., Seek to Certify Classes
IRA INNOVATIONS: Sake, et al., Seek to Certify Three Sub-Classes
IVAN RAMEN USA: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
JERRY DON HODGES: Terry Sues Over Failure to Pay Sufficient Wages
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Barbour County Claims
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Blackhawk School Claims
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Falmouth Says
JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarette, Hickman County Says
JUUL LABS: Faces Hackensack Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
JUUL LABS: Faces Meridian Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign
JUUL LABS: Greater Johnstown Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
JUUL LABS: Northern Highlands Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Berkshire Says
JUUL LABS: Richmond Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis in Mass.
JUUL LABS: Silver Lake Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Crisis in Schools, Itawamba Claims
JUUL LABS: Voorhees Township Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
KIA AMERICA: Whalen Files Suit in C.D. California
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Court Nixes Initial OK of Settlement
KOHL CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Violations
LEARNING EXPRESS: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LENOVO INC: Second Stipulation to Extend Class Cert Deadlines OK'd
LIFE SPECTACULAR: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Cordero Suit
LIMESTONE BANCORP: Monteverde Probes Possible Securities Claims
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
LTF CLUB: Turner's Reimbursement Claim Dismissed With Prejudice
MANHATTAN LUXURY: Bid to Temporarily Stay Green Action Junked
MANHATTAN LUXURY: Bid to Temporarily Stay Watson Action Junked
MARKETSOURCE INC: Brum, Camero Seek to Strike Crandall's Testimony
MEDICAL DATA SYSTEMS: Price Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
MELODY HULETT: Loses Renewed Bid for Judgment in Phillips
META PLATFORMS: Kauffman Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping of Data
METV: Gardner Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Lesorgen Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling
MOSQUITO SQUAD: Lenorowitz Seeks Approval of Class Notice Plan
NATIONWIDE TAX: Taylor Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
NECTAR BRAND: Snow Sues Over Fake Limited-Time Sales
NEW YORK, NY: Renewed Bid for Temporary Restraining Order Filed
NFL: Plaintiff Allowed to File Documents Under Seal
NORTH CAROLINA: Class Certification Denial in Dewalt v. DPS Upheld
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Klein Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Allegheny Sues Over 21.31% Stock Price Drop
POLY-WOOD LLC: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Giannaros Suit
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 29
RAINBOW CHILD: $151K in Fees and Costs Endorsed in Ramnarine Suit
RALPH MILLER: Court OKs Biolabs Class Certification Bid
RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Sued Over Unsafe Levels of Fluorine
RESTONIC SALES: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Woolard Sues Over Misleading Labeling Practices
RP ON-SITE: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Jones Suit
SAVANNAH COLLEGE OF ART: Abrams Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
SENATOR CONSTRUCTION: Faces Acuna Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
SILVERBACK THERAPEUTICS: Dresner Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed
SMASHBURGER IP: Agrees to Settle False Ads' Class Suit for $5.5-M
SUITE NEW YORK: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Remains a Defendant in Mart Class Suit in Minn.
TENNESSEE: Chancery Court's Judgment in Oliver v. TDOSHS Affirmed
TERRA BEAUTY PRODUCTS: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TIMBERLAND BANK: Court Dismisses Rieken Class Suit With Prejudice
TODD PIPE AND SUPPLY: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
TURBIE TWIST LP: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
U.S. RENAL CARE: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Earned and Overtime Wages
UNION PACIFIC: Relief From Judgment Nixed; Blankinship Stays Closed
UNITED STATES: Garrison Appeals Suit Dismissal to 7th Circuit
US BANCORP: Portnoy Firm Files Lawsuit Over Securities Violations
US DOMINION: Cooper Appeals RICO Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit
VANGUARD MARKETING: Ortiz Sues Over Unlawful Use of Voice Prints
WAKEMED HEALTH: Matthiae Files Suit in E.D. North Carolina
WASTE CONNECTIONS: Class Cert Discovery Completion Due Dec 15
WEBMD LLC: Bid to Dismiss Lebakken's 1st Amended VPPA Suit Denied
WESTLAKE ROYAL: Servin Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
WHELAN SECURITY: Teems Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Compensation
WILLIAM DOUGLAS: Carpenter Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit
WINS FINANCE: Kamau Shareholder Suit Pending
WORKHORSE INC: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Derivative Actions
XTREME MANUFACTURING: Settlement in Gonzalez Gets Initial Approval
YANFENG US: Class Settlement in Dover Suit Wins Initial Nod
YSA ARM LLC: Lombardi Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
YUSEN LOGISTICS: Metcalf Allowed Leave to Amend Class Cert. Bid
ZIGNEGO CO: Scheduling Order Entered in Cardenas Class Suit
ZORBX INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ZUCKER'S BAGELS: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
*********
3M COMPANY: Must Submit Class Cert. Opposition by Dec. 2
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JARROD JOHNSON,
individually, and on Behalf of a Class of persons similarly
situated, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00008-AT (N.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg entered an order granting
consent motion for extension of time to file opposition to class
certification.
The parties have filed a consent motion for extension of time to
submit opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for Class certification.
The court grants the consent motion, and extends the deadline for
the Defendants to submit their opposition to the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification through and including December 2, 2022.
3M is a manufacturer and distributor of industrial products and
solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TqjOv8 at no extra charge.[CC]
Counsel for Defendant 3M Company are:
Robert B. Remar, Esq.
Monica P. Witte, Esq.
Katherine L. D’Ambrosio, Esq.
SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
1105 W. Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 1000
Atlanta,GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 815-3500
E-mail: rremar@sgrlaw.com
sculpepper@sgrlaw.com
kdambrosio@sgrlaw.com
mwitte@sgrlaw.com
ACER AMERICA: McCall Sues Over Misleading Labeling Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Carnelius McCall, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situate v. Acer America Corporation, Case No.
2:22-cv-01390-JHE (N.D. Ala., Oct. 31, 2022), is brought seeking
damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's false and
misleading labeling practices with regard to it's the Spin 1 Series
of laptop computers, including models such as the Spin 1
SP111-33-P1XD, under the Acer brand with lithium-ion (Li-ion)
batteries ("Product").
A laptop user expects its battery to adequately function for the
lifespan the laptop, and not suffer rapid degradation and failure.
Lithium-ion battery defects include premature failure, high C-rate
(electrical current drain rate), swelling and overheating, which
are not always attributed to normal degradation. Battery
manufacturing defects contribute to reliability and performance
issues, including low states of charge and unexpected shutdowns.
Structural cell defects from manufacturing can lead to acute
failure, chronic degradation, inferior electrochemical performance
and overheating.
By selling its laptops, Defendant represents that their component
parts are adequate for usage and will function reliably for a
reasonable period of time. The value of the Product that Plaintiff
purchased was materially less than its value as represented by
Defendant. The Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no
less than $299, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar
products, sold and represented in a non-misleading way, and higher
than it would be sold for if consumers were aware it was prone to
these defects.
The Plaintiff bought the Product because she expected its
components such as its battery, would be adequately manufactured,
designed and tested so that it could reliably hold its charge and
not drain rapidly after short periods unconnected to an external
power source. The Plaintiff relied on the sale of the Product,
words, terms coloring, descriptions, layout, placement, packaging,
tags, and/or images on the Product, on the labeling, statements,
omissions, claims, and instructions, made by Defendant or at its
directions, in digital, print and/or social media, which
accompanied the Product and separately, through in-store, digital,
audio, and print marketing.
The battery in Plaintiff's laptop suffered premature failure and
degradation after only several months of normal usage, whereby it
was incapable of obtaining and maintaining its charge for any
reasonable period of time, preventing and limiting her ability to
use it. The Plaintiff and consumers paid more for the Product than
they would have had they known the batteries were only subjected to
electrochemical characterization tests, focusing on macroscopic
battery performance, instead of the occurrence of other defects
which could and did cause battery failures, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product within the statutes of
limitations.
The Defendant sells laptop computers through its website and via
third-party websites and physical stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Frankowski, Esq.
THE FRANKOWSKI FIRM, LLC
1914 4th Ave N Ste 530
Birmingham AL 35203
Phone: (205) 390-0399
Email: richard@frankowskifirm.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
AMENIFY CORPORATION: Butterfield Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amenify Corporation.
The case is styled as Satchel Butterfield, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amenify Corporation,
Case No. 3:22-cv-06639 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Amenify -- https://www.amenify.com/ -- is a real estate technology
company that offers professional cleaning, chores, housekeeping,
dog walking, food delivery, and lifestyle services for multifamily
(apartment) residents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW PA
1925 Century Park E, #1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
ANB BABY NY: Forrest Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anb Baby NY, LLC. The
case is styled as Raymond Forrest, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Anb Baby NY, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-06570 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
ANB Baby NY LLC -- https://www.anbbaby.com/ -- offers retail of
baby strollers, feeding items, car seats, travel systems, diaper
bags and gear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
AXE AND SLEDGE: Nahra Files Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Axe and Sledge Supplements
Inc. The case is styled as John Nahra, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Axe and Sledge Supplements
Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-07897-JFW-JPR (C.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Axe & Sledge Supplements -- https://axeandsledge.com/ -- is the
official brand of IFBB Pro Seth Feroce designed for the Hardest
Workers in the Gym.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary Chrzan, 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: zchrzan@clarksonlawfirm.com
rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
BIKE RENTAL CENTRAL: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bike Rental Central
Park, Inc. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Bike Rental Central
Park, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06621 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bike Rental Central Park, Inc. --
https://bikerentalcentralpark.com/ -- is a bicycle rental service
in New York City.[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
BIMBO BAKERIES: Operative Sched, Discovery Order Entered in Elder
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICKI ELDER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BIMBO BAKERIES
USA, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00637-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
David W. Dugan entered an order amending the operative scheduling
and discovery order as follows:
1. The Defendant's Motion for Summary December 9, 2022
Judgment is due:
2. The Plaintiff's Response in January 27, 2023
Opposition to Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment is due:
3. The Defendant's Reply in Support February 24, 2023
of its Motion for Summary Judgment
is due:
Any Hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment will be set by
separate notice. All deadlines relating to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Class Certification are continued until after the completion of the
Scheduled outlined above, the Court says.
Bimbo is the American corporate arm of the Mexican multinational
bakery product manufacturing company Grupo Bimbo.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EitaVE at no extra charge.[CC]
BMO TRUST: Law School Gets $3.1-M Settlement in Breach Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Exner of The Lawyers Daily reported that The University of
Windsor law school's Class Action Clinic has been awarded $3.1
million from the recent settlement of a $100-million class action
lawsuit, according to an Oct. 27 news release.
The award comes from the settlement in MacDonald et al v. BMO Trust
Company et al 2020 ONSC 93, in which the Ontario Superior Court
found financial institutions had "breached duties as trustees and
fiduciaries by failing to disclose the amount of markup fee on
foreign currency conversions in registered accounts."
"I am impressed with Windsor Law's long-standing commitment to
improving access to justice and with the work of the Class Action
Clinic," James MacDonald, one of the lead plaintiffs in this
action, said in the law school's statement.
"The lawsuit settlement helped thousands of Canadians achieve
access to justice for their claim," he added.
Windsor Law dean Reem Bahdi called the award to the clinic "an
important next step in Windsor Law's rich history of upholding an
access to justice mission for Canadians."
The school's Class Action Clinic was established in 2019 and
received start-up funding from the Law Foundation of Ontario,
according to its website. It is "staffed with a team of law
students, review counsel, and a faculty director who provide a
range of legal services, information, assistance with filing claims
in settlement distribution processes, public education, and
outreach."
"Because we serve class members across Canada, the Clinic provides
its services online, by telephone and by video conference, as well
as in person for those in the Windsor–Essex community," the
website states.
The clinic's focus is "to assist members at all stages of class
action litigation, including in the claims process," according to
the news release. "It has assisted well over 100 class members to
recover more than $1 million in complex settlement claims processes
to date and has also intervened at the Ontario Court of Appeal and
the Federal Court of Appeal on legal issues of widespread
importance."
Furthermore, the clinic "provides law students with a unique
hands-on learning experience as part of their law school education
to become ethical, justice-seeking lawyers through teaching,
research, advocacy, and service," the clinic's founder and director
professor Jasminka Kalajdzic said in the statement.
Dean Bahdi described the class action clinic as the first clinic of
its kind in North America.
"A class action lawsuit facilitates access to justice where it
would otherwise not be attainable, and the clinic is deeply honored
to have been chosen to receive this significant award," Kalajdzic
noted in the statement.
"This re-affirms the important work of the Clinic and will permit
it to accelerate its focus on helping Canadians across the country
in their pursuit of justice through their involvement in current
and future class action lawsuits."
"On behalf of the class members of the lawsuit, we look forward to
the impact Professor Kalajdzic and her team will achieve with this
award," MacDonald said.
If you have any information, story ideas, or news tips for The
Lawyer's Daily on business-related law and litigation, including
class actions, please contact Heidi Exner at
Heidi.Exner@lexisnexis.ca or 905-415-5825. [GN]
BOOMSOURCING: Black Suit Transferred to D. Utah
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Robin Black, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Petitioner v. Boomsourcing, BoomSourcing
BPO, Respondents, Case No. 1:21-cv-3745 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of Illinois, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on Oct. 31, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-mc-00696-RJS to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Motion
to Compel.
Boomsourcing -- https://boomsourcing.com/ -- is a call center in
Lehi, Utah, the costumers turn key contact center solution.[BN]
The Petitioner is represented by:
Steven A. Christensen, Esq.
CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES PLLC
9980 S 300 W #200
SANDY, UT 84070
Phone: (801) 676-6447
Email: stevenchristen@gmail.com
BOSWORTH COMPANY: Court Tosses Dickson Collection Action Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN DICKSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
BOSWORTH COMPANY, LTD., Case No. 7:22-cv-00010-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order denying the
plaintiff's motion for collective action and to authorize notice to
similarly situated employees.
The Court finds Plaintiff's pleadings and the declarations provided
demonstrate that the Plaintiff has not met his burden of
establishing similarity amongst all employees who worked for
Defendant and were paid based on billable hours during the relevant
three-year period.
The Plaintiffs are similarly situated when they suffer from a
single, Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)-violating policy, and when
proof of that policy or of conduct in conformity with that policy
proves a violation as to all the plaintiffs."
In this case, there appear to be notable variances between and
within departments in: timekeeping practices and customs; job
titles; job duties; payment methods; supervisors; overtime pay;
and start times, end times, and lunch breaks.
Bosworth provides quality air conditioning, heating, air quality,
plumbing and electrical services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EcAamR at no extra charge.[CC]
CARE AT HOME: Order on Pretrial Deadlines Entered in Nqadalo
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nqadolo, et al., v. Care
at Home, LLC et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00612 (D. Conn.), the Hon.
Judge Kari A. Dooley entered an order on pretrial deadlines as
follows:
-- Pre-class certification discovery January 31, 2023
shall be completed by
-- The Plaintiffs shall move for April 30, 2023
conditional certification of their
collective action pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act by:
-- The Plaintiffs shall move for May 31, 2023
class certification of their
Connecticut Wage Act claims
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 by:
Additional discovery, including expert discovery on damages, shall
commence after a decision by the Court on the motions for class
certification. Within two weeks of the Court's decision on the
motions for class certification, the parties shall submit an
amended Rule 26(f) Report setting forth a schedule for Phase II
discovery and dispositive motions, the Court says.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]
CG-HHC INC: CMP & Trial Order Entered in Williams Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID WILLIAMS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CG-HHC, INC. d/b/a
Caregiver, A Step Up, Case No. 5:22-cv-01003-SL (N.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Sara Lioi entered an case management plan and trial
order as follows:
1. Deadline to Add Parties or Amend April 21, 2023
Pleadings:
2. Deadline for Completing Non-Expert January 16, 2024
Discovery:
3. Deadline for Party(ies) with Oct. 16, 2023
Burden of Proof to Identify
Experts(s) and Provide Reports
in Compliance with Civil Rule
26(a)(2):
4. Deadline to Identify Rebuttal Nov. 15, 2023
Experts(s) and Provide Reports
in Compliance with Civil Rule
26(a)(2):
5. Deadline for Completing Expert Dec. 18, 2023
Discovery:
6. Deadline for Filing Dispositive Feb. 15, 2024
Motions and Decertification
Motions:
7. Deadline for Filing March 18, 2024
Opposition(s) to above Motions:
CG-HHC is a medical practice company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3heh8mX at no extra charge.[CC]
CHAMPLAIN NATIONAL BANK: Noble Files Suit in N.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Champlain National
Bank. The case is styled as Regionald Noble, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Champlain National Bank, Case
No. 8:22-cv-01130-GTS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Banks and Banking.
Champlain National Bank -- https://www.champlainbank.com/ --
operates as a full-service bank. The Bank accepts deposits, makes
loans, and provides other services for the public.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIEL GOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW-4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 615-3948
Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
- and -
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
KALIEL GOLD PLLC
950 Gilman Street-Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: (202) 350-4783
Email: sgold@kalielgold.com
CHARTER FOODS: Ct. Adopts Judge Wyrick's Class Cert. Recommendation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IM DAVIS, et al., v.
CHARTER FOODS, INC. et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-159 (E.D. Tenn.), the
Hon. Judge Charles E. Atchley, JR. entered an order accepting and
adopting Magistrate Judge Wyrick's recommendation on Plaintiffs'
Motion for Conditional Collective Action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) as well as Plaintiffs' motion for class action
certification.
The Plaintiffs' motion is granted as follows:
Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216, the case is certified as a
collective action as to the following putative class:
"All individuals who are or have been employed by the
Defendants as an Assistant General Manager at any time from
July 21, 2017, through January 1, 2020, who worked more than
40 hours during one or more workweeks and who are not
participating in Gallagher v. Charter Foods, Inc., 2021 WL
2581153 (W.D. Pa. June 23, 2021) as a named or opt-in
plaintiff."
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court certifies
a class consisting of:
"All individuals who are or have been employed by Defendants
as an Assistant General Manager in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania from three years prior to the filing date of the
Complaint [July 21, 2020] up until today, October 26, 2022,
who have worked more than forty (40) hours per week without
being paid at overtime rates."
On March 21, 2022, Magistrate Judge Cynthia R. Wyrick filed her
Report and Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify Class be granted with respect to both conditional
collective certification under the FLSA and Rule 23 class
certification, as specified in the Report.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DNCcs7 at no extra charge.[CC]
CHERRYBO2MB INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cherrybo2mb, Inc. The
case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Cherrybo2mb, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-09321-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Cherry Bo2mb -- https://www.cherrybo2mb.com/ -- is a distributor of
wellness supplements.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
CIMINOCARE: Goosby Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ciminocare. The case
is styled as Larry Norell Goosby, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ciminocare, Does 1-10, Case No.
34-2022-00329033-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct.
31, 2022).
The case type is stated "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."
CiminoCare -- https://www.ciminocare.com/ -- owns, manages, and
advises Senior Housing communities across much of Northern
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John G. Yslas, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wishire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: 213-255-3937
Email: jyslas@wilshirelawfirm.com
CIRCA 1886: More Time to File Class Cert. Opposition Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TANYA LITTLEFIELD, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CIRCA 1886,
LLC d/b/a CIRCA 1886; 1886, LLC; MICHELLE WOODHULL, individually; &
MARK SEVERS, individually, Case No. 2:22-cv-02716-BHH (D.S.C.), the
Parties move the Court for an extending the time for Defendants to
file a Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Class Certification (FLSA) and to Authorize Notice to
Putative Class Members.
-- The current deadline for Defendants to respond to the
Motion for Conditional Class Certification is October
26, 2022.
-- This deadline has been previously extended twice, but the
parties seek a third extension as they continue to make
progress towards an early resolution of this case.
Accordingly, the parties respectfully request an additional
twenty-one (21) days for the Defendants to respond to the Motion
for Conditional Class Certification, such that the deadline shall
be November 16, 2022. Granting this extension would not affect any
other deadlines in this case.
Circa 1886 is one of downtown Charleston's finest restaurant
serving Southern Cuisine.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zNG8YH at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
BRUCE E. MILLER, PA
147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
Charleston, SC 29412
Telephone: (843) 579-7373
Facsimile: (843) 614-6417
E-mail:bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by
Greg Horton, Esq.
Harriet Condon Ward, Esq.
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
P.O. Box 999, 5 Exchange Street, 29401-2530
Charleston, SC 29402-0999
Telephone (843) 722-3400
E-mail: Greg.Horton@wbd-us.com
Harriet.Ward@wbd-us.com
CLOSET FACTORY: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Closet Factory,
Inc. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. The Closet Factory, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-06626 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Closet Factory, Inc. -- https://www.closetfactory.com/ --
designs furniture. The Company offers closet, storage cabinets,
work benches, and bookshelves.[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
CLUBCORP USA: Wolf Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lea Wolf, an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ClubCorp USA, Inc., ClubCorp Golf of
California LLC doing business as: Morgan Run Resort & Club, Does 1
through 100 inclusive, Case No. 37-02022-00038078-CU-BT-CTL was
removed from the Superior Court of California, San Diego, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Oct.
28, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01688-MMA-MDD to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights Other Contract.
ClubCorp -- http://www.invitedclubs.com/-- is a privately held
American corporation based in Dallas and is the largest owner and
operator of private golf and country clubs in the country.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
- and -
Nadir Osman Ahmed, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NADIR O. AHMED
421 Broadway Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (216) 272-8250
Email: nadiroahmed@gmail.com
- and -
Robert Radulescu, Esq.
1818 6th Avenue, Unit #203
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (206) 799-6472
Email: romanrobert@gmail.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Ana Tagvoryan, Esq.
Harrison M. Brown, Esq.
Natalie Alameddine, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
2029 Century Park East, Sixth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (424) 239-3400
Fax: (424) 239-3434
Email: ATagvoryan@blankrome.com
hbrown@blankrome.com
natalie.alameddine@blankrome.com
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Court Adopts Proposed Discovery Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HYSTAD CEYNAR MINERALS,
LLC, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated persons,
v. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00139-DLH-CRH
(D.N.D.), the Hon. Judge Clare R. Hochhalter, entered an order
adopting the parties' proposed scheduling/discovery plan and
setting the following deadlines:
-- Motion Deadline for Class Sept. 1, 2023
Certification:
-- Discovery Deadline: June 3, 2024
-- Discovery Motions Deadline: June 3, 2024
-- Plaintiff Expert Witness March 1, 2024
Reports Deadline:
-- Defendant Expert Witness April 1, 2024
Reports Deadline:
-- Rebuttal Expert Witness May 1, 2024
Reports Deadline:
-- Discovery Depositions of June 3, 2024
Expert Witness Deadline:
-- Motions to Join Additional Dec. 1, 2023
Parties Deadline:
-- Motions to Amend Pleadings: Dec. 1, 2023
-- Nondispositive Motions April 1, 2024
Deadline:
-- Dispositive Motions June 3, 2024
Deadline:
Continental Resources is a petroleum and natural gas exploration
and production company headquartered in Oklahoma City.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hiDTGx at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:
Stacy A. Burrows, Esq.
George A. Barton, Esq.
Seth K. Jones, Esq.
BARTON AND BURROWS, LLC
5201 Johnson Drive Ste. 110
Mission, KS 66205
Telephone: (913) 563-6253
E-mail: stacy@bartonburrows.com
george@bartonburrows.omc
seth@bartonburrows.com
- and -
Josh A. Swanson, Esq.
Robert B. Stock, Esq.
VOGEL LAW FIRM
218 NP Ave.
Fargo, ND 58102
Telephone: (701) 237-6983
E-mail: jswanson@volgellaw.com
rstock@vogellaw.com
The Attorneys for Continental Resources, Inc. are:
Ronald H. McLean, Esq.
Kasey D. McNary, Esq.
SERKLAND LAW FIRM
10 Roberts Street North P.O. Box 6017
Fargo, ND 58108-6017
Telephone: (701) 232-8957
E-mail: rmclean@serklandlaw.com
kmcnary@serklandlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey C. King, Esq.
Jamie Lavergne Bryan, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
Bank of America Tower 301 Commerce, Suite 3000
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 347-5270
Facsimile: (817) 347-5299
E-mail: Jeffrey.C.King@klgates.com
Jamie.Bryan@klgates.com
CORPORATION OF MERCER: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Corporation Of
Mercer University. The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. The Corporation
Of Mercer University, Case No. 1:22-cv-00820 (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 31,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mercer University -- https://www.mercer.edu/ -- is a private
research university with its main campus in Macon, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
- and -
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP
122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620
New York, NY 10168
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
CREDIT BUREAU: Loses Limited Discovery Bid in Kang FCRA-CCRAA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SUN GON KANG, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT BUREAU CONNECTION, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01359-AWI-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California denies the Defendant's motion for limited
discovery from absent class members.
Credit Bureau Connection ("CBC") sells credit reports that help
automobile dealers manage the regulatory compliance obligations
that accompany every consumer car purchase. One of the obligations
derives from a Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control
("OFAC") regulation that prohibits dealers from doing business with
anyone designated as a "Specially Designated National" or "SDN" on
OFAC's SDN list. Individuals on the SDN list consist of persons and
companies owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of,
targeted countries, as well as persons and entities that are not
country-specific, such as terrorists and drug traffickers. SDNs are
prohibited from transacting business in the United States for
national security reasons.
CBC's credit reports indicate whether a consumer is an "OFAC Hit,"
that is, someone with whom the automobile dealer might not want to
do business because of that person's match to the SDN list. The
Plaintiff was a consumer whose name inaccurately came up as an OFAC
Hit on a credit report sold by CBC to Norm Reeves Honda. The OFAC
check matched him with a North Korean SDN named Song Nam Kang, and
Norm Reeves Hondo denied him credit on that basis. The Plaintiff
later requested and received a copy of the credit report, and
learned that CBC's OFAC check incorrectly matched him with an SDN.
The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on behalf of himself and a class
of similarly situated consumers, pleading causes of action under
the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section
1681 et seq., and California's Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies
Act ("CCRAA"), Cal. Civil Code Section 1785.1 et seq. Specifically,
on behalf of a putative class, the Plaintiff alleges that CBC
failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum
possible accuracy of the consumer information included in its OFAC
Check documents, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681e(b) and
Cal. Civil Code Section 1785.14(b); and failed to disclose upon
request all information in consumer files, in violation of 15
U.S.C. Section 1681g(a) and Cal. Civil Code Sections 1785.10 and
1785.15.
On behalf of only himself, the Plaintiff alleges that CBC failed to
reinvestigate the disputed OFAC-related information that it had
prepared and sold to the dealership, in violation of 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681i.
On July 14, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify the
class, which was granted on March 4, 2022. The Court certified the
following classes:
a. For the Plaintiff's FCRA claims for statutory damages, a
class defined as All individuals about whom Defendant prepared a
report that (1) included an OFAC Hit; (2) was published to a third
party from Oct. 2, 2013 to March 4, 2022 and (3) included a U.S.
address (including U.S. Territories) for that individual.
b. For the Plaintiff's CCRAA claims for injunctive relief, a
class defined as "All individuals about whom the Defendant prepared
a report that (1) included an OFAC Hit; (2) was published to a
third party from Oct. 2, 2011 to March 4, 2022; and (3) included a
U.S. address (including U.S. Territories) for that individual."
The Court also appointed the Plaintiff as the class representative,
and his counsel as the co-class counsel.
On Oct. 14, 2022, CBC filed a motion seeking permission to serve
five interrogatories on approximately 1,194 absent class members.
The parties filed their Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement
directed to the Motion, as required by the Court's Local Rule 251,
on Oct. 26, 2022. Judge Oberto has reviewed the parties' papers and
all supporting material and finds the matter suitable for decision
without oral argument. The hearing set for Nov. 9, 2022, is
therefore vacated.
According to the Arredondo v. Delano Farms Co., No. 1:09-CV-01247
MJS, 2014 WL 5106401, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2014) court,
discovery from absent class members may be permitted when "[1]
reasonably necessary, [2] not conducted for an improper purpose,
and [3] not unduly burdensome in the context of the case and its
issues."
Applying these Arredondo factors, Judge Oberto finds that CBC has
not carried its burden of justifying the absent class member
discovery it seeks. With respect to the first factor, CBC has
failed to show that the proposed discovery is reasonably necessary
at this stage of the proceedings. It appears that deferring fact
gathering regarding CBC's individualized statute of limitations
questions and damages issues until later in the case is more
appropriate than permitting CBC to propound interrogatories to all
approximately 1,194 absent class members at this time.
With regard to the second factor, Judge Oberto finds that
notwithstanding CBC's stated purpose of using the discovery
responses to develop its defenses and to rebut the Plaintiff's
request for damages, there is a strong likelihood that the
"practical effect of the discovery would be to reduce the size of
the class." CBC does not indicate its position regarding the legal
consequences for class members who do not provide a response.
Finally, with respect to the third factor, CBC has failed to
demonstrate that the discovery sought would not be unduly
burdensome. She is also unpersuaded that responding to the proposed
interrogatories would not require the assistance of counsel,
thereby increasing the burden on the recipients.
For the reasons she stated, Judge Oberto denies the Defendant's
Motion and vacates the hearing set for Nov. 9, 2022.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5yfhsn94 from Leagle.com.
CREME SHOP INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Creme Shop, Inc.
The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. The Creme Shop, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-09335 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Creme Shop -- https://www.thecremeshop.com/ -- began
researching and developing beauty products in a humble office
tucked away in Downtown, Los Angeles, California since 1988.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
CSWS LLC: Barry Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Club Dancers
----------------------------------------------------------
RENEE BARRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CSWS, LLC, and DEBORAH DIAZ, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-05872 (N.D. Ill., October 25, 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
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a dancer from
around July of 2019 until April of 2022.
CSWS, LLC, doing business as Ocean's Gentlemen's Club, is an owner
and operator of an adult entertainment club, located at 5555 West
70th Place, Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Krista Sheets, 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: krista@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
DOES: Bid for Expedited Discovery in Champion TCPA Suit Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSHUA CHAMPION, et al., Plaintiffs v. DOES,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-2697 (D.D.C.), Judge Collen
Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Ex Parte
Motion for Expedited Discovery.
Plaintiffs Joshua Champion, Susan Scharf, Robert Shane, and Anthony
Verias allege that the Doe Defendants, who are telephone spammers,
violated their rights under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991. The Plaintiffs bring their Class Action Complaint for
themselves and on behalf of other similarly situated people
nationwide who have received spam calls and texts from the Doe
Defendants.
The Plaintiffs bring a putative class action pursuant to this
private right of action alleging violations of the TCPA and a
Florida state analogue, Fla. Stat. Section 501.059. They allege
they have received thousands of violative text messages and calls.
They indicate that the majority of telephone spam that they have
received from the Doe Defendants involves multiple parties.
The Plaintiffs explain that the various parties at work in a spam
telephone campaign include a caller, lead generator, seller, and
sometimes a marketing broker/affiliate network. The Defendants Does
are currently unknown individuals and entities who initiated calls
and text messages to the Plaintiffs and the class members, or who
are otherwise liable for these calls and text messages through
their roles as one of the aforementioned parties.
The Plaintiffs filed their complaint against the Doe Defendants on
Sept. 7, 2022. They allege that the Doe Defendants have concealed
their identities and can only be identified via discovery. On Sept.
12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the pending Ex Parte Motion for
Expedited Discovery to uncover the identities of the Doe Defendants
by subpoenaing factual information relevant to their identities
from third parties.
The Plaintiffs name numerous phone carriers, domain registrars and
domain-related parties, sellers, and brokers who they believe to
have "discoverable information that will lead to the identification
of the Doe Defendants," and indicated that others may also have
such information. They also indicate that "the responses to their
subpoenas may reveal additional parties who have information which
would assist them in identifying the Defendants, such as UPS
Stores, landlords, email providers, and others."
Judge Kollar-Kotelly is satisfied that the Plaintiffs' request for
expedited discovery is both relevant and proportional, when
limited. Considering the Doe Defendants' concealment of their
identities and the Plaintiffs' stated expertise, as demonstrated
through success in numerous cases uncovering defendants'
identities, she finds that the Plaintiffs' requested discovery is
necessary and likely to uncover the identities of the Doe
Defendants.
The Plaintiffs' request for expedited discovery also satisfies the
relevancy requirement. Judge Kollar-Kotelly opines there is
sufficient evidence to demonstrate a "threshold showing" of
specific personal jurisdiction. It is not necessary to determine
whether the Plaintiffs will actually succeed in establishing
personal jurisdiction over the Doe Defendants because the mere
possibility that an unnamed defendant may defeat a complaint at a
later stage is not a legitimate basis to deny a Rule 26(d)(1)
motion that otherwise satisfies Rule 26's discovery standards. She
finds that the Plaintiffs have a "realistic chance" of identifying
a Defendant over which the Court could exercise personal
jurisdiction.
Having established the relevance of the Plaintiffs' discovery
request, Judge Kollar-Kotelly turns to proportionality. She finds
that (i) given the TCPA's purpose and the scope of the Plaintiffs'
allegations, the importance of the issue is considerable; (ii)
there are substantial amount in controversy and number of spam
communications currently alleged by the Plaintiffs; and (iii) the
third parties retain access over the identities of the Doe
Defendants that the Plaintiffs have been unable to gather
independently.
However, Judge Kollar-Kotelly limits the Plaintiffs' discovery
request related to (1) phone carriers, 2) domain registrars and
domain-related parties, and (3) sellers and brokers to only those
entities listed by name in his Motion. Until the Doe Defendants are
identified and named as parties to this litigation or until other
information comes to light, she denies the Plaintiffs' request to
subpoena "additional parties."
Judge Kollar-Kotelly concludes that the Plaintiffs' expedited
discovery request is both relevant to their claims and, for some of
the requested subpoenas, proportional to the needs of the case. For
the foregoing reasons, she grants in part and denies in part their
Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly grants the Plaintiffs' motion with respect to
the phone carriers, domain registrars and domain-related parties,
and sellers and brokers that they have listed by name in their
Motion. She denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion with
respect to additional phone carriers, domain registrars and
domain-related parties, and sellers and brokers that are not named
in the Motion, as well as any "additional parties" not named in the
Motion.
An Order accompanies the Memorandum Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/26h72mme from Leagle.com.
DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Gile Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN GILE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying
their motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Brian
Gile, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dolgen California, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 5:20-cv-01863-MCS-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.
Plaintiffs Brian Gile and Randolph Gallegos initially filed this
wage and hour case in California state court. The Defendant removed
it to federal court in September 2020. Following a protracted
pleadings stage, Plaintiffs filed their Seventh Amended Complaint
(7AC), asserting nine California law claims.
On November 15, 2021, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration of Gallegos's claims. The Court also denied the
Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings concerning Gile's
claims on May 6, 2022.
On May 9, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class,
which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Mark C.
Scarsi. The Court found the Plaintiffs as inadequate and atypical
class representative.
The appellate case is captioned Brian Gile, et al. v. Dolgen
California, LLC, Case No. 22-55987, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 24, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Randolph Gallegos and Brian Gile Mediation
Questionnaire was due on October 31, 2022;
-- Appellants Randolph Gallegos and Brian Gile opening brief is
due on February 1, 2023;
-- Appellee Dolgen California, LLC answering brief is due on
March 3, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants BRIAN GILE, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Mickel Montalban Arias, Esq.
Craig Shunji Momita, Esq.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP
6701 Center Drive, W. Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Telephone: (310) 844-9696
- and -
Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
16133 Ventura Boulevard
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 990-8300
Defendant-Appellee DOLGEN CALIFORNIA, LLC, is represented by:
Sabrina Alexis Beldner, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
1800 Century Park, E. 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 956-3419
- and -
Matthew Allen Fitzgerald, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
800 E. Canal Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 775-4716
E. ANDRE CONSTRUCTION: Oliveira Files FLSA Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against E. Andre Construction
Services Inc., et al. The case is styled as Adilson De Oliveira,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. E. Andre Construction Services Inc. also known as: E. Andre
Construction Services LLC; Meky Payroll Services; Edward Andre,
Elana Matos, individually, Case No. 3:22-cv-06330-PGS-TJB (D.N.J.,
Oct. 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
E. Andre Construction -- https://eandreconstruction.com/ -- is one
of central New Jersey's leading construction companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Glenn, Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
300 Carnegie Center Suite 150
Princeton, NJ 08540
Phone: (201) 687-9977
Fax: (201) 595-0308
Email: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
EMPRESS AMBULANCE: Colon Suit Removed to S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Josh Colon, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Empress Ambulance Service, LLC doing business
as: Empress Emergency Medical Services, Case No. 815075/2022E was
removed from the Supreme Court, County of Bronx, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 31,
2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:22-cv-09322-KMK to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Empress EMS -- https://empressems.com/ -- has been providing
ambulance services in the metro NYC area for over 37 years.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Casie D. Collignon, Esq.
BAKER HOSTETLER (DENVER)
1801 California Street, Suite 4400
Denver, CO 45202
Phone: (303) 861-0600
Email: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Robyn Mara Feldstein, Esq.
BAKER HOSTETLER
45 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10111
Phone: (212) 589-4278
Email: rfeldstein@bakerlaw.com
EMPRESS AMBULANCE: Contristano Suit Removed to S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Salvatore J. Contristano, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Empress Ambulance
Service, LLC doing business as: Empress Emergency Medical Services,
Case No. 65746/2022 was removed from the Supreme Court, County of
Westchester, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Oct. 31, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:22-cv-09318-KMK to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Empress EMS -- https://empressems.com/ -- has been providing
ambulance services in the metro NYC area for over 37 years.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Casie D. Collignon, Esq.
BAKER HOSTETLER (DENVER)
1801 California Street, Suite 4400
Denver, CO 45202
Phone: (303) 861-0600
Email: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Robyn Mara Feldstein, Esq.
BAKER HOSTETLER
45 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10111
Phone: (212) 589-4278
Email: rfeldstein@bakerlaw.com
ENDICOTT COIL COMPANY: Griffin Files FLSA Suit in N.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Endicott Coil
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Deseria R. Griffin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Endicott Coil Company, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-01128-MAD-ML
(N.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Endicott Coil -- https://www.endicottcoil.com/ -- manufactures
custom transformers and inductors, custom-wound electric coil,
encapsulating coil, and value-added services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nelson E. Canter, Esq.
MCLAUGHLIN, STERN LAW FIRM
260 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 448-1100
Email: ncanter@canterlawfirm.com
G. SKILL: Scheduling Order Entered in Hurd Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tristan Hurd v. G. Skill
International Enterprise Co., LTD. et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-00685-SSS-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes
entered an order:
1. granting the parties' stipulation to withdraw without
prejudice Plaintiff's first motion for class
certification; and
2. granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to
amend his complaint to include additional defendants.
The Court sets the following deadlines regarding Plaintiff’s
anticipated renewed motion for class certification as follows. The
Court will schedule a case management conference to set all
remaining deadlines after ruling on that motion.
-- Deadline to Complete Class May 5, 2023
Certification Discovery:
-- Deadline to File Motion for June 2, 2023
Class Certification:
-- Deadline to File Opposition June 30, 2023
to Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Deadline to File Reply to July 14, 2023
Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Class Certification Hearing: Aug. 11, 2023
The parties are reminded that all merits discovery is stayed until
further order of the Court, and the only discovery permitted is
discovery related to class certification.
In their stipulation, the parties indicated that Plaintiff intends
to file a renewed motion for class certification once those
additional defendants have had the opportunity to conduct class
certification discovery of their own.
[Dkt. 36]. Plaintiff’s deadline to file his amended complaint is
November 4, 2022.
G. Skill is a Taiwanese computer hardware manufacturing company
that produces a variety of high-end PC products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hqQpno at no extra charge.[CC]
GARDNER TRUCKING: Amezcua Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RICARDO AMEZCUA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GARDNER TRUCKING, INC.; GAMINO &
ASSOCIATES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
RG20080628, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on October 25, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:22-cv-06501 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to indemnify,
failure to provide accurate written wage statements, failure to
timely pay all final wages, and unfair competition.
Gardner Trucking, Inc. is a provider of trucking transportation
services, with its principal place of business in Iowa.
Gamino & Associates, Inc. is a provider of trucking transportation
services, with its principal place of business in California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kristen J. Nesbit, Esq.
Shaun J. Voigt, Esq.
Lalonnie V. Gray, Esq.
Ariella M. Kupetz, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 330-4500
Facsimile: (213) 330-4501
E-mail: knesbit@fisherphillips.com
svoigt@fisherphillips.com
lgray@fisherphillips.com
akupetz@fisherphillips.com
GATEWAY DIAGNOSTIC: Marker Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Victoria Marker, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Gateway Diagnostic Imaging, LLC,
Case No. 352-337300-22 was removed from the 352nd District Court of
Tarrant County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas on Oct. 31, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-00981-P to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Torts/Pers Inj: Other Personal
Injury for Federal Trade Commission Act.
Gateway Diagnostic Imaging -- https://www.gatewaydiagnostic.com/ --
is a diagnostic center that offers MRI, CT scan, ultrasound, and
X-Ray imaging services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan L Thompson, Esq.
Ryan Hugh Anderson, Esq.
THOMPSON LAW LLP
3300 Oak Lawn Ave., 3rd Floor
Dallas, TX 75219
Phone: (214) 755-7777
Fax: (214) 716-0116
Email: rlthompson@triallawyers.com
randerson@triallawyers.com
- and -
Jason Johnston, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
80 S 8th Street, Suite 1100
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 341-0400
Fax: (612) 341-0844
Email: Jason.Johnston@zimmreed.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Tamara D Baggett, Esq.
BAKER HOSTETLER
2850 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 210-1208
Fax: (214) 210-1201
Email: tbaggett@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Casie D Collignon, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1801 California Street, Suite 4400
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 861-0600
Email: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com
GENERAL WAX: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Compensations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose A. Tovar Garcia, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved
employees v. GENERAL WAX CO., INC.; GENERAL WAX & CANDLE CO., INC.;
and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV34731 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 31, 2022), is brought seeking civil
penalties associated with the Defendants' violation of the Labor
Code by failure to pay proper compensations.
The Defendants failed to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum
wage and all overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay;
failed to authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant
meal periods or pay meal period premium wages; failed to authorize
or permit all legally required and/or compliant rest periods or pay
rest period premium wages; failed to timely produce requested
employment records; failed to timely pay earned wages during
employment; failed to provide accurate wage statements; failed to
timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in an hourly position
from March 2021 until his termination on April 8, 2022.
GENERAL WAX CO., INC. is authorized to do business within the State
of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Melissa Huether, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
wht3@lelawfirm.com
GEORGE BROWN: Price Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against George Brown
Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Price, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. George Brown
Associates, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00592 (W.D.N.C., Oct. 28,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
George Brown Associates -- https://georgebrowncollect.com/ --
offers a variety of services to maintain and monitor their
receivables; medical, retail, and commercial.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Randolph Emory, Esq.
THE EMORY LAW FIRM, P.C.
11020 David Taylor Drive, Suite 102
Charlotte, NC 28262
Phone: (704) 371-4333
Fax: (704) 371-3015
Email: emorylawecf@gmail.com
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Amended Pretrial Sched Order Entered
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN BARTHOLOMEW, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GOODMAN
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, L.P., a Texas Limited Partnership; GOODMAN
GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and GOODMAN GLOBAL
GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00027-TLN-AC
(E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an amended
pretrial scheduling order as follows:
-- The Court finds that bifurcation is necessary in order to
best determine if the elements of class certification are
met.The Court hereby bifurcates the discovery process.
-- All discovery in Phase I shall be limited to facts that are
relevant to whether this action should be certified as a
class action and shall be completed within 240 days.
-- The Motion for Class Certification shall be filed no later
class certification than 180 days after the close of
certification discovery. The parties are responsible for
ensuring that all motions are filed to allow for proper
notice of the hearing under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and/or Local Rules.
-- Failure to comply with Local Rule 230(c), may be deemed
consent to the motion and the Court may dispose of the
motion summarily
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3T8Xmqo at no extra charge.[CC]
GUADALUPANA BAKERY: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guadalupana Bakery
Corp., et al. The case is styled as Nana Queenie Lawrence, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Guadalupana Bakery
Corp., 308 Ellery LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06558 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 28,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Guadalupana Bakery Corp. is a bakery located in Brooklyn, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Bell, Esq.
BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 208
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 280-3008
Fax: (516) 706-4692
Email: jb@belllg.com
HALLMARK CARDS: May Face Class Suit for Unsolicited Telemarketing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter shared through Class Action.org that a proposed
class action alleges Hallmark Cards has illegally sent
telemarketing text messages to phone numbers listed on the National
Do-Not-Call Registry, even after being explicitly asked to stop.
The 14-page suit alleges the greeting card retailer has
persistently sent unwanted text messages to a Connecticut
consumer's cell phone throughout the past year and as recently as
October 24, even though the man's number had been registered on the
National Do-Not-Call Registry. According to the case, the text
messages advertised various Hallmark promotions and contained a
link to its website.
Although Hallmark's text included instructions to "Txt STOP=opt
out," the lawsuit contends that the company ignored the plaintiff's
two requests to "stop" and continued to send him telemarketing
messages for another month.
"In addition to using Plaintiff's telephone data, phone storage,
and battery life, Plaintiff's privacy was wrongfully invaded.
Plaintiff has become understandably aggravated with having to deal
with the frustration of repeated, unwanted text messages, forcing
Plaintiff to divert attention away from other activities," the
complaint reads.
The filing alleges that Hallmark intentionally programmed its
telephone dialing system to continue sending spam messages for more
than 30 days after a consumer texts "stop."
Per the complaint, Hallmark has violated the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending telephone solicitations
to phone numbers listed on the Do-Not-Call Registry. The TCPA also
prohibits any telemarketing initiation in which the caller fails to
"honor a residential subscriber's do-not-call request within a
reasonable time from the date such request is made," the case
explains.
According to the suit, the plaintiff has no prior business
relationship with Hallmark and never provided the retailer with his
phone number.
The lawsuit looks to represent the following class:
"All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the
filing of this action:
(1) were sent text messages by or on behalf of Defendant;
(2) more than one time within any 12-month period;
(3) where the person's telephone number had been listed on the
National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days;
(4) for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of
Defendant's products and/or services; and
(5) where either (a) Defendant did not obtain prior express written
consent to message the person or (b) the called person previously
advised Defendant to 'STOP' messaging them." [GN]
HONEST COMPANY: Scheduling Order Entered in Dixon Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cody Dixon v. The Honest
Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-07405-MCS-PLA (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered a scheduling order:
-- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off: August 18, 2023
-- Expert Disclosure (Initial): August 1, 2023
-- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): September 2, 2023
-- Expert Discovery Cut-Off: September 18, 2023
-- Deadline to File a Motion for February 13, 2023
Class Certification:
-- Deadline to File an Opposition March 6, 2023
to the Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Deadline to File a Reply in March 27, 2023
Support of the Motion for
Class Certification:
-- Hearing Date on Motion for April 17, 2023
Class Certification:
The Court will set additional dates, including pretrial and trial
dates, after a ruling on class certification is issued. To the
extent applicable, the Court orders the parties to comply with the
Order Re: Jury/Court Trial available on the Court’s
website, https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/honorable-mark-c-scarsi.
Honest Company is an honestly safe baby and beauty store that
brings innovative formulas and thoughtful designs to beauty and
baby products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NPvkPr at no extra charge.[CC]
HP INC: Cepelak, et al., Seek to Certify Classes
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN CEPELAK, JUDY
CHAMBERS, JIM DICKINSON and MARCIA NUPP, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. HP INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-02450-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order certifying the following Classes:
-- California Print-To-Stop Class
"All persons who purchased the following HP printers in
California at any time beginning four (4) years prior to
the filing of this action until the present (California
Class Period): HP OfficeJet 6100, 8600, 8702, 8100, 8210,
8216, 8600 Plus, 8610, 8615, 8620, 8625, 8630, 8710, 8715,
8717, 8720, 8725, 8730, 8740, 9010, 9015, 9015e, 9016,
9018, 9019, 9020, 9025, and 9025e (the "Print-To-Stop
Printers").
-- California Underprinting Class
"All persons who purchased any HP printer in California at
any time during the California Class Period (together with
the California Print-To-Stop Class;"
-- New York Print-To-Stop Class
"All persons who purchased any of the Print-To-Stop
Printers in New York at any time beginning six years
prior to the filing of this action until the present;"
-- New York Underprinting Class
"All persons who purchased any of the Printers in New York
at any time during the New York Class Period;"
-- Arkansas Print-To-Stop Class
"All persons who purchased any of the Print-To-Stop
Printers in Arkansas at any time beginning five years prior
to the filing of this action until the present;"
-- Arkansas Underprinting Class
"All persons who purchased any of the Printers in Arkansas
at any time during the Arkansas Class Period;”
-- Arizona Print-To-Stop Class
"All persons who purchased any of the Print-To-Stop
Printers in Arizona at any time beginning three years prior
to the filing of this action until the present;"
-- Arizona Underprinting Class
"All persons who purchased any of the Printers in Arizona
at any time during the Arizona Class Period."
The Plaintiffs further move the Court for an Order designating them
as Class Representatives and appointing their counsel, Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP and Walsh P.L.L.C as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiffs also request the Court order the parties to meet and
confer and present this Court, within fifteen days of an order
granting class certification, with a proposed notice to the
certified Classes.
HP Inc. provides computing, imaging and printing systems, mobile
devices, solutions, and services for business and home. T
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated Oct. 26,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FR5o4a
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
Joshua Nassir, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 256-2884
Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
jnassir@faruqilaw.com
- and -
Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
WALSH P.L.L.C.
1561 Long Haul Road
Grangeville, ID 83530
Telephone: (541) 359-2827
Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com
IRA INNOVATIONS: Sake, et al., Seek to Certify Three Sub-Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAKE TN, LLC, and SEANACHE
HOMES, INC., for themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
PATRICK MOSS, IRA INNOVATIONS, LLC, MARY M. WESTER, individually
and as Trustee of the Mary M. Wester Revocable Trust, MIKE TODD,
and LYCIA WHITE as Executrix of the Estate of William J. Gulas,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00108 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court
to enter an Order that the action may proceed as a class action.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs propose three sub-classes with the
following definitions:
1. Usury Class consists of: (a) all persons who paid interest
and/or loan charges at any point from July 22, 2016, to (i)
Mary M. Wester, individually, (ii) Mary M. Wester, as
Trustee of the Mary M. Wester Irrevocable Trust, or (iii)
IRA Innovations, LLC, or against whom the Class Defendants
obtained a judgment based upon a loan which provided for
the payment of interest and/or loan charges; (b) where the
loan is/was governed by Tennessee law; and (c) which
interest rate and/or loan charges exceeded the maximum
legal rate allowed under Tennessee law.
2. Breach of Contract Class consists of: (a) all persons who
paid interest and/or loan charges at any point from July
22, 2013, to one or more of the Class Defendants, and (b)
pursuant to a loan governed by Tennessee law that contained
a provision requiring the repayment to maker of any
unlawfully excessive interest and/or loan charges.
3. RICO Class consists of: (a) all persons who qualify under
the "Usury Class," and (b) who at any point from July 22,
2015, paid interest and/or loan charges at twice the
maximum legal statutory rate in the State of Tennessee.
IRA Innovations is a provider of record keeping and administration
services for self-directed retirement accounts.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated Oct. 26,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t8Q4bt
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory H. Oakley, Esq.
J. Brad Scarbrough, Esq.
Brandon Carnes, Esq.
BUILDLAW, PLC
4300 Sidco Drive, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37204
Telephone: (615) 369-9996
E-mail:greg@build.law
brad@build.law
brandon@build.law
The attorneys for IRA Innovations and Mike Todd are:
Richard N. Bien, Esq.
LATHROP GPM, LLP
2345 Grand Blvd, Sutie 2200
Kansas City, MO 64108
E-mail: Richard.bien@lathropgpm.com
- and -
John R. Tarpley, Esq.
LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C.
424 Church Street, Suite 2500 PO Box 198615
Nashville, TN 37219
E-mail: jtarpley@lewisthomason.com
The Attorneys for Patrick Moss:
Robert M. Burns, Esq.
HOWELL & FISHER, PLLC
3310 West End Avenue, Suite 550
Nashville, TN 37203
E-mail: rburns@howell-fisher.com
The Attorneys for Mary M. Wester, individually and as Trustee of
the Mary M. Wester Revocable Trust are:
Phillip G. Young, Jr., Esq.
THOMPSON BURTON PLLC
1801 West End Avenue, Suite 1550
Nashville, TN 37203
E-mail: phillip@thompsonburton.com
IVAN RAMEN USA: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ivan Ramen USA, LLC.
The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Ivan Ramen USA, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-06622 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ivan Ramen USA -- https://www.ivanramen.com/ -- is a ramen
restaurant offering creative homemade noodle soups & izakaya-style
small plates served in a colorful space with a patio.[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
JERRY DON HODGES: Terry Sues Over Failure to Pay Sufficient Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seth Terry, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. JERRY DON HODGES, an individual, Case No.
6:22-cv-01668-AA (D. Ore., Oct. 31, 2022), is brought against
Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Oregon Wage and Hour Laws as a result of the Defendant's policy and
practice of failing to pay Plaintiff sufficient wages.
The Defendant does not track the Plaintiff's or other Delivery
Drivers' actual expenses, nor does the Defendant keep records of
all of those expenses. The Defendant does not reimburse the
Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers for their actual expenses. The
Defendant does not reimburse the Plaintiff and other Delivery
Drivers at the IRS standard business mileage rate. The Defendant
does not reimburse the Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers at a
reasonable approximation of Delivery Drivers' expenses. The
Defendant reimburses the Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers at a
flat rate of $1.00 per delivery or $1.50 per delivery if the
Plaintiff took two orders out for delivery at the same time.
As a result of the automobile and other job-related expenses
incurred by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated Delivery
Drivers, they were deprived of minimum wages guaranteed to them by
the FLSA and the Oregon statutes. The Defendant knew or should have
known that it was not paying the Plaintiff and other Delivery
Drivers sufficient minimum wages. The Defendant has willfully
failed to pay a minimum wage to the Plaintiff and similarly
situated Delivery Drivers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
Delivery Driver from August of 2021 until May of 2022.
The Defendant owns and operates multiple Domino's Pizza franchises
in Oregon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ashley A. Marton, OSB No. 171584
Rebecca Cambreleng, OSB No. 133209
CRISPIN HANNON MARTON CAMBRELENG LLC
1834 SW 58th Avenue, Suite 200
Portland, OR 97221
Phone: 503-293-5770
Fax: 503-293-5766
Email: ashley@employmentlaw-nw.com
rebecca@employmentlaw-nw.com
- and -
Lydia H. Hamlet (pro hac vice forthcoming)
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AK 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Barbour County Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BARBOUR COUNTY SCHOOLS, BARBOUR COUNTY, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.;
ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and
PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06493 (N.D.
Cal., October 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of West Virginia
Public Nuisance Law 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.
Barbour County Schools, Barbour County, State of West Virginia is a
school district with offices located at 45 School Street, Philippi,
West Virginia.
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.
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:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
Davis S. Vaughn, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com
- and -
Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq.
THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC
716 Lee St. E.
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 344-9322
E-mail: Rusty@RustyWebb.com
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Blackhawk School Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKHAWK 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;
PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS
PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01493-MRH (W.D. Pa., October 25, 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, the suit says.
Blackhawk School District is a public school district with
administrative offices located at 500 Blackhawk Road, Beaver Falls,
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.
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:
Thomas W. King, III, Esq.
Thomas E. Breth, Esq.
Jordan P. Shuber, Esq.
Michael D. Shakley, Esq.
DILLON MCCANDLESS KING COULTER & GRAHAM, LLP
128 West Cunningham Street
Butler, PA 16001
Telephone: (724) 283-2200
Facsimile: (724) 283-2298
E-mail: tking@dmkcg.com
tbreth@dmkcg.com
jshuber@dmkcg.com
mshakley@dmkcg.com
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Falmouth Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
FALMOUTH PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06534 (N.D. Cal., October 26, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law 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.
Falmouth Public Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913,
IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
William H. Orrick.
Falmouth Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 340 Teaticket Hwy. in East Falmouth,
Massachusetts.
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.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarette, Hickman County Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
HICKMAN COUNTY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., ALTRIA GROUP,
INC., PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS
PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH, and RIAZ VALANI, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-06502 (N.D. Cal., October 25, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law 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.
Hickman County Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913,
IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
William H. Orrick.
Hickman County Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 115 Murphree Ave. in Centerville, Tennessee.
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.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Faces Hackensack Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
----------------------------------------------------------------
HACKENSACK PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06547 (N.D. Cal., October 26, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law 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.
Hackensack Public Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Hackensack Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 191 Second Street in Hackensack, New Jersey.
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.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Faces Meridian Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign
------------------------------------------------------------------
MERIDIAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., ALTRIA GROUP,
INC., PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS
PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH, and RIAZ VALANI, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-06505 (N.D. Cal., October 25, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law 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.
Meridian Public School District case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Meridian Public School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 1019 25th Ave. in Meridian, Mississippi.
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.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Greater Johnstown Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GREATER JOHNSTOWN CAREER AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; 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-00195-SLH (W.D. Pa.,
October 26, 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.
Greater Johnstown Career and Technology Center is a public school
district with administrative offices located at 445 Schoolhouse
Road, Johnstown, 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.
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:
Thomas W. King, III, Esq.
Thomas E. Breth, Esq.
Ronald N. Repak, Esq.
Jordan P. Shuber, Esq.
DILLON MCCANDLESS KING COULTER & GRAHAM, LLP
128 West Cunningham Street
Butler, PA 16001
Telephone: (724) 283-2200
Facsimile: (724) 283-2298
E-mail: tking@dmkcg.com
tbreth@dmkcg.com
rrepak@dmkcg.com
jshuber@dmkcg.com
JUUL LABS: Northern Highlands Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NORTHERN HIGHLANDS REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06518 (N.D. Cal., October 26,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law 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, the suit says.
Northern Highlands Regional High School case has been consolidated
in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Northern Highlands Regional High School is a high school with its
offices located at Hillside Avenue in Allendale, New Jersey.
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.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Berkshire Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
BERKSHIRE HILLS REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06527-WHO (N.D. Cal., October 26,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law 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, the suit alleges.
Berkshire Hills Regional School District case has been consolidated
in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Berkshire Hills Regional School District is a unified school
district with its offices located at 50 Main Street in Stockbridge,
Massachusetts.
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.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Richmond Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICHMOND CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06529-WHO (N.D. Cal., October 26,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law 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.
Richmond Consolidated School case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Richmond Consolidated School is a unified school district with its
offices located at 1831 State Road in Richmond, Massachusetts.
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.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Silver Lake Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
--------------------------------------------------------------
SILVER LAKE REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06543 (N.D. Cal., October 26, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law 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.
Silver Lake Regional School District case has been consolidated in
MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Silver Lake Regional School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 250 Pembroke Street in Kingston,
Massachusetts.
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.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Crisis in Schools, Itawamba Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
ITAWAMBA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06521 (N.D. Cal., October 26, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law 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, the suit alleges.
Itawamba County School District case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Itawamba County School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 605 S. Cummings St. in Fulton, Mississippi.
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.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Voorhees Township Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------------
VOORHEES TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06517 (N.D. Cal., October 26, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law 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, the suit alleges.
Voorhees Township Public Schools case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.
Voorhees Township Public Schools is a unified school district with
its offices located at 329 RT. 73. in Voorhees, New Jersey.
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.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
KIA AMERICA: Whalen Files Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kia America, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Mary Jane Whalen, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc.,
Hyundai America Technical Center, Incorporated, Case No.
8:22-cv-01987-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Kia America, Inc. -- http://www.kiamedia.com/-- provides a wide
range of cars that meet your lifestyle. Browse our luxury or sports
sedans, hybrids, electric cars, SUVs & hatchbacks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin F. Ruf, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY AND MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 201-9150
Fax: (310) 201-9160
Email: kruf@glancylaw.com
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Court Nixes Initial OK of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MARTINEZ, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC. dba ARIZONA KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION,
INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-01730-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheila
K. Oberto entered an order denying preliminary approval of the
proposed class action settlement without prejudice.
The parties request approval of the following class of an estimated
5,500 individuals (the "Settlement Class" or "Settlement Class
Members"):
"all current and former truck drivers employed by defendant
Knight Transportation, Inc., who advised 6 defendant that
they resided in Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and/or
Colorado, who were paid in whole or in part on a piece-rate
basis, and who drove one or more routes of five hours or more
entirely within the State of California for defendant during
the 'Class Period' from September 30, 2012 through
preliminary approval" of the settlement."
The Plaintiff has defined "PAGA Claim Members" as "any and all
Class Members, who worked Defendant at any time from September 27,
2015 up to preliminary approval" of the settlement.
For settlement purposes, the parties have defined the "Class
Period" as the time period from "September 30, 2012 through
preliminary approval" of the settlement. By contrast, the relevant
period for the PAGA claims is September 27, 2015, through
preliminary approval.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement is warranted. While
the Court is mindful of the strong judicial policy favoring
settlements, this settlement cannot be approved without additional
information and amendment. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement is denied, without prejudice
to Plaintiff renewing the motion to address the identified issues
and concerns.
Knight is a full truckload carrier.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fFHpKo at no extra charge.[CC]
KOHL CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Globe News Wire website published that The Portnoy Law Firm advises
Kohl's Corporation ("Kohl's" or the "Company") (NYSE: KSS)
investors that a class action filed on behalf of investors. Kohl's
investors that lost money on their investment are encouraged to
contact Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by
phone at 844-767-8529 or by email: at lesley@portnoylaw.com, to
discuss their legal rights, or click here:
https://portnoylaw.com/kohls-corporation/ to join the case via
www.portnoylaw.com. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a
complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for
pursuing claims to recover their losses.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Kohl's Strategic Plan was not well tailored to achieving the
Company’s stated goals;
(ii) the Defendants had likewise overstated the Company's success
in executing its Strategic Plan;
(iii) Kohl's had deficient disclosure controls and procedures,
internal control over financial reporting, and corporate governance
mechanisms;
(iv) as a result, the Company's Board was able to and did withhold
material information from shareholders about the state of Kohl's in
the lead-up to the Company's annual meeting;
(v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material
negative impact on Kohl's financial condition and reputation; and
(vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
On May 19, 2022, Kohl's issued a press release announcing the
Company's fiscal Q1 2022 results, reporting, among other items, a
net sales figure expected to grow up to only 1% (compared to Wall
Street consensus growth of 1.94%), earnings per share of $0.11
(missing estimates by $0.59), a revenue figure which only barely
edged expectations, and the Company's decision to cut its full-year
earnings forecast. These results were at odds with the Defendants'
representations regarding the successful execution of the Company's
Strategic Plan, which was purportedly poised to drive top-line
growth and position the Company for long-term success.
Further, the press release quoted Kohl's Chief Executive Officer
Defendant Michelle Gass, who stated, in the relevant part, "the
year has started out below our expectations. Following a strong
start to the quarter with positive low-single digits' comps through
late March, sales considerably weakened in April as we encountered
macro headwinds related to lapping last year's stimulus and an
inflationary consumer environment."
Then, on May 20, 2022, Macellum Advisors GP, LLC ("Macellum"), "a
long-term holder of nearly 5% of the outstanding common shares of
Kohl's", issued a statement addressing "this quarter's extremely
disappointing results," which Macellum attributed to a "flawed
strategic plan and an inability to execute." Macellum also stated
that "the current Board appears to have withheld material
information from shareholders about the state of Kohl's in the
lead-up to this year's pivotal annual meeting," which "suggests to
us a clear breach of fiduciary duty."
On this news, Kohl's stock price fell $5.84 per share, or 12.97%,
to close at $39.20 per share on May 20, 2022.
Investors can visit Portnoy's website to review more information
and submit their transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims caused
by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered
over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com
Attorney Advertising [GN]
LEARNING EXPRESS: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Learning Express,
Inc. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Learning Express, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-06623-EK-VMS (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Learning Express -- https://learningexpress.com/ -- is the largest
franchiser of specialty toy stores in the United States.[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
LENOVO INC: Second Stipulation to Extend Class Cert Deadlines OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW AXELROD and ELIOT
BURK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
4:21-cv-06770-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White
entered an order granting second stipulation to extend class
certification deadlines as follows:
-- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file May 8, 2023
motion for class certification
and to serve expert disclosures
and reports shall be:
-- The Plaintiffs' deadline to produce June 26, 2023
experts for deposition shall be:
-- The Defendant's deadline to file Aug. 21, 2023
opposition to motion for class
certification and to serve expert
disclosures and reports shall be:
-- The Defendant's deadline to produce Oct. 2, 2023
experts for deposition shall be:
-- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file Oct. 30, 2023
reply re motion for class
certification shall be:
-- The hearing on the motion for class Dec. 1, 2023
certification shall be on:
Lenovo operates as a software and hardware reseller.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3G01Xbd at no extra charge.[CC]
LIFE SPECTACULAR: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Cordero Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rafael Cordero,
Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
Life Spectacular, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05708-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Paul Oetken entered a civil case management plan and
scheduling order as follows:
-- All fact discovery shall be Feb. 13,2023
completed no later than:
-- Initial requests for production Nov. 28, 2022
of documents shall be served by:
-- Interrogatories shall be served by: Nov. 28, 2022
-- All expert discovery, including April 10, 2023
expert depositions, shall be
completed no later than:
-- Plaintiff's expert disclosures March 16, 2023
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)
shall be made on or before:
The Plaintiff will seek class certification under FRCP 23. The
Plaintiff proposes that his class certification motion be filed by
March 1, 2023. The Defendant shall have until April 3, 2023 to file
opposition papers. The Plaintiff shall have until May 1, 2023 to
file any reply.
Life Spectacular is a private company that develops, produces and
distributes skincare products.
Life Spectacular is a private company that develops, produces and
distributes skincare products under the brand name of PROVEN
Skincare.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hsVThp at no extra charge.[CC]
LIMESTONE BANCORP: Monteverde Probes Possible Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benzinga provided the news through Newswires.com that Juan
Monteverde, founder, and managing partner of the class action firm
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Limestone
Bancorp, Inc. (LMST), relating to its proposed acquisition by
People's Bancorp Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, LMST
shareholders are expected to receive 0.90 shares of People per
share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/limestone-bancorp-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as a Rising Star
and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities Litigation. He has also
been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated
Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a
significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under
Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter,
our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining the
dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the
United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S.
Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, we have recovered or secured over a dozen
cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class
action cases.
If you own common stock in LMST and wish to obtain additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via
e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212)
971-1341.
Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Attorney Advertising. (C) 2022 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter.[GN]
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loyola University Of
Chicago. The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Loyola University Of
Chicago, Case No. 1:22-cv-00821 (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Loyola University Chicago -- https://www.luc.edu/ -- is a private
Jesuit research university in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
- and -
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP
122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620
New York, NY 10168
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
LTF CLUB: Turner's Reimbursement Claim Dismissed With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SAMUEL TURNER, Plaintiff v. LTF CLUB MANAGEMENT CO,
LLC, et al. Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00046-DAD-JDP (E.D. Cal.),
Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended
complaint.
The matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's SAC filed on behalf of Defendants LTF Club Management
Co., LLC and Life Time Fitness, Inc. on May 9, 2022. The matter was
taken under submission on the papers by the previously assigned
district judge. On Aug. 25, 2022, the case was reassigned to Judge
Drozd.
The Court has twice dismissed Turner's putative class action
complaint alleging various wage-and-hours violations under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for pleading generalized and
conclusory statements devoid of any factual detail. The Plaintiff
timely filed the operative SAC on April 25, 2022, realleging ten of
his original eleven claims.
Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts the following ten claims in his
SAC: (1) failure to compensate overtime labor in violation of
California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1198; (2) failure to provide
meal periods in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7
and 512(a); (3) failure to provide rest periods in violation of
California Labor Code Section 226.7; (4) failure to pay minimum
wage in violation of California Labor Code Sections 1194, 1197, and
1197.1; (5) failure to timely pay final wages in violation of
California Labor Code Sections 201 and 202; (6) failure to timely
pay wages during employment in violation of California Labor Code
Section 204; (7) failure to provide complete itemized wage
statements in violation of California Labor Code Section 226(a);
(8) failure to reimburse work-related losses and expenses in
violation of California Labor Code Sections 2800 and 2802; (9) a
derivative claim of unfair business practices in violation of
California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq.
(UCL); and (10) a derivative claim under the Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act (PAGA), California Labor Code Sections 2689
et seq.
On May 9, 2022, the Defendants filed the pending motion to dismiss
seeking to dismiss all 10 of the Plaintiff's claims. The Plaintiff
filed an opposition to the pending motion on May 23, 2022, and the
Defendants filed their reply thereto on June 2, 2022.
Judge Drozd concludes that at this stage of the litigation, the
Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient because he need only give
rise to a plausible inference that there was an instance where he
was not properly paid, and he has identified several such
instances. Indeed, the Plaintiff's SAC now contains sufficient
allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable
the opposing party to defend itself effectively. Accordingly, due
to the new allegations appearing in the SAC, the Plaintiff has now
stated an overtime claim, meal break claim, rest break claim, and a
claim for unpaid wages under California law. In addition, his
claims five through seven, which are derivative of claims one
through four, also survive the Defendants' pending motion to
dismiss.
Having reviewed the allegations in the Plaintiff's SAC, Judge Drozd
also concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to state an adequate
failure to reimburse claim. Accordingly, the additional facts and
information alleged in the Plaintiff's SAC fails to move his claim
eight "across the line from conceivable to plausible," and, thus,
is dismissed.
Judge Drozd also does not grant the Plaintiff further leave to
amend with respect to this claim. The Plaintiff's failure to
reimburse claim is dismissed with prejudice.
Finally, as the Court explained in its previous order, and as the
Defendants acknowledge in their pending motion, the Plaintiff's
claims nine and ten are derivative of his claims that sufficiently
state a violation of California's Labor Code (i.e., claims one
through seven). Because Judge Drozd has determined that the
Plaintiff has now sufficiently alleged his claims one through
seven, claims nine and ten also survive the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.
The Defendants will file their answer to the remaining claims
asserted by the Plaintiff in their SAC within 21 days of service of
the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/w3w6tudx from Leagle.com.
MANHATTAN LUXURY: Bid to Temporarily Stay Green Action Junked
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Greene v. MANHATTAN LUXURY
AUTOMOBILES, INC. d/b/a LEXUS OF MANHATTAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-04572
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna Schofield entered an order denying
the Defendant's emergency motion to temporarily stay this action
pending the determination for Lexus's Petition for Appeal to the
Second Circuit and any appeal permitted to be heard before the
Second Circuit concerning the September 29, 2022, Order granting
class certification of the NDNCR Class.
The Plaintiff includes BRIAN WATSON, DANIEL SAMARGHITAN, ANNMARIE
GREENE f/k/a ANNMARIE MOHAMMED, JOSE ESPINAL, and LYMELL JACKSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.
Manhattan Luxury provides the retail sale of new and used
automobiles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NC7YwN at no extra charge.[CC]
MANHATTAN LUXURY: Bid to Temporarily Stay Watson Action Junked
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Watson, et al., v.
MANHATTAN LUXURY AUTOMOBILES, INC. d/b/a LEXUS OF MANHATTAN, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01588-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna Schofield
entered an order denying the the Defendant's emergency motion to
temporarily stay this action pending the determination for Lexus's
Petition for Appeal to the Second Circuit and any appeal permitted
to be heard before the Second Circuit concerning the September 29,
2022, Order granting class certification of the NDNCR Class.
The Plaintiff includes BRIAN WATSON, DANIEL SAMARGHITAN, ANNMARIE
GREENE f/k/a ANNMARIE MOHAMMED, JOSE ESPINAL, and LYMELL JACKSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.
Manhattan Luxury provides the retail sale of new and used
automobiles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t4qnsw at no extra charge.[CC]
MARKETSOURCE INC: Brum, Camero Seek to Strike Crandall's Testimony
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER BRUM and MICHAEL
CAMERO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated, v. MARKETSOURCE, INC. WHICH WILL DO
BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS MARYLAND MARKETSOURCE, INC., a Maryland
corporation; ALLEGIS GROUP, INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-00241-DAD-JDP (E.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
their motion to strike the opinions, declaration, and testimony of
Robert W. Crandall as inadmissible, and/or to give them no weight
at class certification.
Accordingly, the Court should use its "gatekeeping" powers to
exclude the paragraphs of Dr. Crandall's report that do not meet
the minimum standards or reliability and relevance, the Plaintiffs
contend.
In the alterative, if the Court believes it would be meaningful for
the Parties to meet and confer before ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion,
Plaintiffs' respectfully request that Plaintiffs' motion be denied
without prejudice.
As highlighted in Plaintiffs' Motion, Dr. Crandall's opinions fail
to meet the basic standards for admissible expert evidence—they
are not reliable, irrelevant, and will not assist the trier of
fact. The majority of his declaration is filled with improper legal
conclusions, false narratives, speculation and conjectural
statements that should be stricken just as many other courts have
frequently stricken portions of Dr. Crandall's reports on identical
grounds, the Plaintiffs add.
MarketSource is a sales acceleration company focused on delivering
better outcomes for many of the world's most iconic brands.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3taC0yl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jennifer Brum and Michael Camero are:
Melissa Grant, Esq.
Brandon Brouillette, Esq.
Mark Ozzello, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com
Brandon.Brouillette@capstonelawyers.com
Mark.Ozzello@capstonelawyers.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
LEBE LAW
777 S. Alameda Street, Floor 2
Los Angeles, CA 90021-1657
Telephone: (213) 358-7046
E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com
- and -
Rodney Mesriani, Esq.
MESRIANI LAW GROUP
5723 Melrose Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90038
Telephone: (310) 826-6300
Facsimile: (310) 820-1258
E-mail: Rodney@mesriani.com
MEDICAL DATA SYSTEMS: Price Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Data Systems
Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Price, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Medical Data Systems
Inc. doing business as: Medical Revenue Services, Case No.
3:22-cv-00591-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C., Oct. 28, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Medical Data Systems, Inc. -- https://meddatsys.com/ -- provides
revenue cycle management and collection services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Randolph Emory, Esq.
THE EMORY LAW FIRM, P.C.
11020 David Taylor Drive, Suite 102
Charlotte, NC 28262
Phone: (704) 371-4333
Fax: (704) 371-3015
Email: emorylawecf@gmail.com
MELODY HULETT: Loses Renewed Bid for Judgment in Phillips
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICIA PHILLIPS, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and a class of others similarly situated,
v. MELODY HULETT, et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-03087-SEM-EIL (C.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Sue E. Myerscough entered an order denying
the Defendants' renewed motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or,
in the alternative, for a New Trial.
The Court concludes that each of the Defendants' challenges to the
jury verdict are either forfeited or fail on the merits.
Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion for judgment as matter
of law under Rule 50(b) or, alternatively, for a new trial under
Rule 59.
At the conclusion of a trial beginning on May 31, 2022, a jury
found the Defendants Melody Hulett, Russell Reynolds, Renee
Hatfield, and Troy Dawdy liable for violating the rights of the
Plaintiff class of women who were subjected to strip and body
cavity searches during a March 31, 2011, cadet training exercise.
The jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages to each of the
six testifying class members: Plaintiffs Patricia Phillips, Ieshia
Brown, Miranda Howard, Teresa Williams, Veela Morris, and Michelle
Wells.
This case has a lengthy procedural history. In April 2016, U.S.
District Judge Richard Mills denied the Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment as to the Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claims and
granted summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment
claims.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NGAldc at no extra charge.[CC]
META PLATFORMS: Kauffman Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping of Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Kauffman, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-06658-SK (N.D.
Cal., Oct. 28, 2022), is brought for damages and injunctive relief
against the Defendant, and its present, former, or future direct
and indirect parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents,
related entities for violations of the Federal Wiretap (the
"Wiretap Act") and the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"),
in relation to the unauthorized interception, collection,
recording, and dissemination of Plaintiff's and Class Members'
communications and data.
This case stems from the Defendant's unauthorized interceptions and
connections to the Plaintiff's and Class Members' electronic
communications when using the Defendant's Facebook or Messenger
applications. The Defendant derives its primary stream of revenue
through the Plaintiff's and Class Members' data it obtains by
tracking the Plaintiff's and Class Members' movements online.
Beginning April 2021, Apple's iOS 14 update required Defendant to
obtain its users' informed consent before tracking user internet
activity on apps and third-party websites. As a result, Defendant
lost access to its primary steam of revenue.
Now, even when users do not consent to tracking, the Defendant
tracks Facebook users' online activity and communications with
external third-party websites by injecting JavaScript code into
those sites. This means every time a user clicks a web link within
the apps the Defendant owns such as Facebook, Instagram, or
Messenger apps, the Defendant automatically directs them to the
in-app browser the Defendant monitors rather than directing the
user to a default browser. The Defendant fails to inform its users
of this tracking.
The information the Defendant intercepts, monitors, and records
includes personally identifiable information ("PII"), private
health details, text entries, and other sensitive confidential
facts. The Defendant's undisclosed tracking of the Plaintiff's and
Class Members' browsing activity and communications violates
federal and state wiretap laws, entitling the Plaintiff and Class
Members to damages and injunctive relief, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff used Defendant's app over the past year.
The Defendant owns and operates large social media platforms,
including Facebook and Instagram.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Swigart (SBN 225557)
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: 866-219-3343
Fax: 866-219-8344
Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com
- and -
Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: 619-222-7429
Email: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com
METV: Gardner Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MeTV. The case is
styled as David Vance Gardner, Jeannetta McElroy, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MeTV, Case No.
1:22-cv-05963 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 28, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
MeTV -- https://www.metv.com/ -- an acronym for Memorable
Entertainment Television, is an American broadcast television
network owned by Weigel Broadcasting.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W Monroe St., Ste. 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Lesorgen Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Lesorgen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Mondelez Global LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-50375
(N.D. Ill., Oct. 28, 2022), is brought seeking damages and an
injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading labeling
practices with regard to its chewing gum under the Trident brand
described as "Original Flavor" with a picture of a mint leaf
("Product").
The Defendant does not explicitly disclose the flavor beyond the
word "Original" and the mint leaf, it is described in materials
provided to third parties by Defendant as a combination of
peppermint and cinnamon flavor. By representing the Product as
"mint" or "peppermint" without any qualifying terms, consumers and
Plaintiff expected its taste was from mint or peppermint
ingredients. However, the ingredient list in small print on the
back does not identify any mint or peppermint ingredients, and gets
its mint or peppermint taste from "Natural and Artificial Flavor."
Natural and artificial flavor are less expensive and more
concentrated than real mint and peppermint, so less of it needs to
be used.
The Product's added natural and artificial flavor simulates,
resembles and/or reinforces its characterizing flavor of mint or
peppermint, and is required to be disclosed prominently on the
front label to consumers, such as "Natural and Artificially
Flavored Mint" or "Natural and Artificially Flavored Peppermint."
The Product contains other false and misleading representations and
omissions. The value of the Product that Plaintiff purchased was
materially less than its value as represented by Defendant.
As a result of the false and misleading representations and
omissions, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no
less than $2.99 for 14 sticks, 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.
Mondelez Global LLC manufactures, labels, markets, and sells
chewing gum under the Trident brand described as "Original Flavor"
with a picture of a mint leaf.[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
MOSQUITO SQUAD: Lenorowitz Seeks Approval of Class Notice Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL LENOROWITZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,v.
MOSQUITO SQUAD OF FAIRFIELD AND WESTCHESTER COUNTY, Case No.
3:20-cv-01922-JBA (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order approving the proposed notice plan, which fully satisfies
all requirements under Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and due process.
The Plaintiff's notice plan proposes sending individual mailed
notice to each member of the class, since the Defendant has the
addresses for each of these class members. In order to ensure that
any class members who have since moved also receive notice, the
Plaintiff's notice plan further proposes that notice be
additionally issued via email, which can be easily and efficiently
achieved since Defendant has these email addresses as well.
Finally, the Plaintiff's notice plan envisions that certain class
members -- those whose phone numbers are listed as a 'Landline' in
Defendant's records -- be provided with both a one-page paper
Affidavit form, along with the ability to submit their claim
online, so that they can certify membership in the proposed class.
The Plaintiff's proposed forms of notice are easy to read and
understand, and thus comport with the requirements of Rule 23 and
due process.
As discussed at length in the parties' briefing on class
certification, there are approximately 9,186 class members in this
action, as identified by the call records produced by Mobile
Sphere.
Once the Plaintiff receives the Defendant's unredacted call records
(which, unlike Mobile Sphere's records, will reflect the particular
campaign associated with each prerecorded call), any
non-telemarketing calls can be easily excised by cross-referencing
those records with Mobile Sphere's records of successfully-placed
calls.
The Plaintiff further proposes establishing a case-specific website
to allow Class members the ability to obtain additional documents
and information about the case, as well as the ability to certify
membership in the class online without the need to obtain an
envelope and postage in this digital age.
Mosquito Squad offers barrier spraying and misting to control
mosquito and ticks for Residential and Commercial customers.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 26, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hmyVIS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiff Samuel Lenorowitz are:
Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, New Jersey 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
NATIONWIDE TAX: Taylor Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Taylor, an individual v. NATIONWIDE TAX EXPERTS, INC., a
corporation; VANES SA OAKES, an individual; and DOES 1 through 250,
inclusive, Case No. 22GDCV00790 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
Oct. 31, 2022), is brought pursuant to Labor Code as a result of
the Defendant refusal to pay the Plaintiff even undisputed funds
that are at issue, such as for minimum wage underpayments and
overtime that was dramatically underpaid.
The Plaintiff was not paid a salary and did not fit into any
overtime exemption, and as a result, he was paid overtime
compensation for overtime hours that were recorded on his paystub.
However, there were two problems with the overtime compensation.
First, the actual hours reported on the paystub were not accurate
and grossly underreported his overtime hours. Plaintiff is informed
and believes that the hours that were put on his paystub were
largely made up. Secondly, the overtime rate that was calculated
was grossly off, as the rate was simply a product of the base
hourly rate multiplied by 1.5. There was no effort to calculated
the correct "regular rate" for overtime purposes, which should have
included the commission earnings.
On top of this, for a period of time during the statutory period,
the Defendant failed to pay minimum wage. As a result, there are
both minimum wage earnings owed, plus liquidated damages under
Labor Code. And there were further minimum wage underpayments that
resulted from the Defendant making up hours worked rather than
keeping track of the actual hours worked, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as a tax reduction specialist for Defendants.
NATIONWIDE TAX EXPERTS, INC. have a business aimed at reducing or
cancelling tax liabilities of individuals with the IRS and other
agencies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BUCHSBAUM & HAAG, LLP
100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: (562) 733-2498
Fax: (562) 733-2498
Email: brent@buchsbaumhaag.com
laurel@buchsbaumhaag.com
NECTAR BRAND: Snow Sues Over Fake Limited-Time Sales
----------------------------------------------------
Amanda Snow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NECTAR BRAND LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-07912-MCS-MRW (C.D.
Cal., Oct. 31, 2022), is brought against the Defendant's violation
of Washington's general prohibition on unfair or deceptive business
practices by advertising fake limited-time sales, fake regular
prices, and fake discounts based on the fake regular prices.
The Defendant makes, sells, and markets mattresses, bedding, and
other sleep-related products (the "the Nectar Products" or
"Products"). The Products are sold online through Defendant's
website, nectarsleep.com. the Defendant's website prominently
advertises sales on its websites. These advertisements include
purported regular prices, purported discounts, and a countdown
timer that purportedly shows when the sale ends.
Everything about the advertisements is false. the Defendant's
products do not retail at the supposed regular prices it lists. In
fact, the Defendant has never once sold a single product at its
supposed "regular" price. The supposedly "discounted" prices are
the prices that the Defendant always sells its products for. And
when the countdown timer ends, the sale doesn't. the Defendant
simply changes the name of the sale (for example, from "Labor Day"
sale to "After Labor Day" sale) and continues to list its products
at the same, supposedly discounted price.
Like the Defendant's other customers, when the Plaintiff bought the
Defendant's products, the Defendant advertised that a purported
sale was going on. The Plaintiff believed that the Defendant
Products that she purchased retailed for the displayed regular
price. She further believed that she was getting a substantial
discount from the regular price, and that the sale would end soon.
These reasonable beliefs are what caused her to buy from the
Defendant when she did. If the products she purchased weren't on
sale, she would not have bought them and would have instead
comparison shopped.
But none of that was true. The Defendant's published regular prices
were fake; the products the Plaintiff bought were not actually sold
at those prices. There is also no actual discount from full price,
and the sale never ends. Had the Defendant been truthful, Plaintiff
and other consumers would not have purchased the products or would
have paid less for them, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff bought a Nectar mattress and bedding.
Nectar makes, sells, and markets the Products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin Cho, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
Email: christin@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
NEW YORK, NY: Renewed Bid for Temporary Restraining Order Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Women of Color for Equal
Justice et al v. The City of New York., Case No.
1:22-cv-02234-EK-LB (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter a temporary restraining order (with notice) and preliminary
injunction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 against the Defendants
from:
1) entering into any agreement with any labor union that
represents any City employees that includes any term or
provision that requires any employee or prospective
employee to be vaccinated or immunized for any reason as a
"condition of employment" or "pre-condition of employment"
with the City, and
2) all other injunctive relief requested in Plaintiffs
Proposed Preliminary Injunction due to:
a. the City's refusal to obtain a variance from the
Secretary of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration which is required before any employer
can enforce an "alternative safety method,"
specifically the medical treatment of a vaccine,
different from the existing authorized OSHA safety
methods for controlling infectious communicable
diseases pursuant to 29 USC 655 §6(d); and
b. the fact that the City's Vaccine Orders "conflict" with
the safety scheme and religious liberty protection
standard in the Federal OSH Act, conflicts with the
U.S. Supreme Court decision in Cruzan v. Director,
Missouri Dep't of Health, 297 U.S. 261 (1990).
The Plaintiffs include WOMEN OF COLOR FOR EQUAL JUSTICE, REMO DELLO
IOIO, ELIZBETH LOIACONO, SUZANNE DEEGAN, MARITZA ROMERO, JULIA.
HARDING, CHRISTINE O'REILLY, AYSE P. USTARES, SARA COOMBS-MORENO,
JESUS COOMBS, ANGELA VELEZ, SANCHA BROWNE, AMOURA BRYAN, ZENA
WOUADJOU, CHARISSE RIDULFO, TRACY- ANN FRANCIS MARTIN, KAREEM
CAMPBELL, MICHELLE HEMMINGS HARRINGTON, MARK MAYNE, CARLA GRANT,
OPHELA INNISS, CASSANDRA CHANDLER, AURA MOODY, EVELYN ZAPATA, SEAN
MILAN, SONIA HERNANDEZ, BRUCE REID, JOSEPH RULLO, AND CURTIS BOYCE,
JOSESPH SAVIANO, MONIQUE MORE, NATALYA HOGAN, JESSICA CSEPKU,
ROSEANNE MUSTACCHIA, YULONDA SMITH, MARIA FIGARO, RASHEEN ODOM,
FRANKIE TROTMAN, GEORGIANN GRATSLEY, EDWARD WEBER, MERVILYN WALLEN,
PAULA SMITH, SARAH WIESEL SUZANNE SCHROETER, DAWN SCHOL, LYNDSAY
WANSER, CHRISTIAN MURILLO, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, MAYOR ERIC L. ADAMS,
COMISSIONER ASHWIN VASAN, MD, PHD DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL
HYGIENE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, AND DOES 1-20.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 26, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3G4Y1Ga at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jo Saint-George, Esq.
14216 Dunwood Valley Dr
Bowie MD 20721-1246
E-mail: jo@woc4equaljustice.org
and
Donna Este-Green, Esq.
25 Fairway Dr.
Hempstead, NY 11550
and
Tricia S. Lindsay, Esq.
531 E. Lincoln Ave., Suite 5B
Mount Vernon, New York 10552
Telephone: (860) 783-8877
Facsimile: (914) 840-1196
E-mail: TriciaLindsayLaw@gmail.com
NFL: Plaintiff Allowed to File Documents Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re National Football
Leagues Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
2:15-ml-02668-PSG-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Philip S.
Gutierrez entered an order granting the Plaintiff's application
under local Rule 79-5 to file documents under seal.
1. The sealed declaration of Kevin Trainer in Support of the
Plaintiff's application to file documents under seal.
2. The unredacted version of the Second Corrections to the
Expert Reports of Daniel A. Rascher, J. Douglas Zona and
Sarah Butler.
3. The unredacted version of the Clarification of and
Addendum to Expert Report of Daniel A. Rascher ISO Motion
for Class Certification.
NFL is a professional American football league that consists of 32
teams, divided equally between the American Football Conference
(AFC) and the National Football Conference (NFC). The NFL is one of
the major professional sports leagues in the United States and
Canada and the highest professional level of American football in
the world.[5]
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zZh0y5 at no extra charge.[CC]
NORTH CAROLINA: Class Certification Denial in Dewalt v. DPS Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, 2022-NCSC-105 ROCKY DEWALT, ROBERT PARHAM, ANTHONY
McGEE, and SHAWN BONNETT, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons v. ERIK A. HOOKS, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Public
Safety, and the NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Case
No. 165A21 (N.C.), Judge Paul Martin Newby of the Supreme Court of
North Carolina affirms the trial court's order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Court considers whether the trial court erred by denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs are inmates in North Carolina Department of Public
Safety (DPS) custody. They brought a class action lawsuit against
the Defendants seeking to represent certain individuals in DPS
custody who are being or will be subjected to solitary confinement.
They do not challenge the use of solitary confinement in every
housing setting or allege that solitary confinement is per se
unconstitutional. Rather, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants' policies and practices concerning specific restrictive
housing assignments violate the state constitution.
On Oct. 16, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit
seeking to certify a class of current and future inmates assigned
to one of five restrictive housing classifications. They alleged
the conditions of confinement across the five restrictive housing
assignments presented the same substantial risk of harm to all
individuals and constituted cruel or unusual punishment.
The five challenged restrictive housing settings are: Restrictive
Housing for Disciplinary Purposes (RHDP), Restrictive Housing for
Control Purposes, High Security Maximum Control (HCON), Restrictive
Housing for Administrative Purposes, and the first two phases of
the Rehabilitative Diversion Unit.
The Defendants filed their answer on Jan. 21, 2020. On Feb. 4,
2020, the matter was designated as exceptional pursuant to Rule 2.1
of the General Rules of Practice for the Superior and District
Courts and assigned to Judge James E. Hardin Jr. The Plaintiffs
filed their motion for class certification on April 24, 2020
pursuant to Rule 23(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil
Procedure. They thereafter took discovery and submitted evidence in
support of their motion. The Defendants filed their response in
opposition with supporting evidence on Aug. 12, 2020. The trial
court held a Webex hearing on Dec. 1, 2020 and heard oral argument
from both parties.
On Feb. 22, 2021, the trial court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and found that a certifiable class did not
exist for three independent reasons: (1) they failed to demonstrate
a common predominating issue among the group of potential class
members, (2) they did not establish that the named representatives
would fairly and adequately represent the interests of all class
members, and (3) litigating this case as a class action was not the
superior method of adjudication.
The Plaintiffs appealed directly to the Court under N.C.G.S.
Section 7A-27(a)(4).
Because Judge Newby concludes that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in determining there is no common predominating
issue, he limits his review to that basis. The question is whether
the trial court abused its discretion in concluding the Plaintiffs
failed to demonstrate a common predominating issue among the
proposed class members.
Judge Newby finds that the Plaintiffs failed to present additional
evidence, such as specific studies and expert witness reports to
support their claim that DPS's policies and practices create a
uniform risk of harm to individuals assigned to each of the
challenged restrictive housing settings. The varying penological
purposes also precluded a finding that the Plaintiffs established a
common predominating issue. Moreover, the different procedural
safeguards for each restrictive housing classification precluded a
finding that plaintiffs established a common predominating issue.
Finally, no common issue predominates over issues affecting only
individual class members because of the fundamental differences
across the housing classifications.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Newby concludes the Plaintiffs have
failed to establish that the claims of all potential class members
share a common issue capable of resolution with one stroke. The
record evidence firmly supports the trial court's conclusion that
the Plaintiffs failed to establish a common predominating issue
among the purported class members. Since the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in determining the Plaintiffs failed to meet
this initial requirement to class certification, review of the
additional bases is not needed.
For these reasons, Judge Newby affirms the trial court's order
denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mp3fnw8u from Leagle.com.
ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation by Daniel K. Siegel and
Kristi Graunke -- contact@acluofnc.org -- for the
Plaintiff-Appellants.
Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Orlando L. Rodriguez, Special
Deputy Attorney General, Mary Carla Babb, Special Deputy Attorney
General, and James B. Trachtman, Special Deputy Attorney General,
for the Defendant-Appellees.
Aviance Brown, Irving Joyner, Daryl Atkinson, Whitley Carpenter,
and Ashley Mitchell -- info@forwardjustice.org -- for North
Carolina Conference of the NAACP, amicus curiae.
Lockamy Law Firm, by Scott Holmes; and Roderick & Solange MacArthur
Justice Center, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, by Daniel
Greenfield, Bradford Zukerman, and Kathrina Szymborski --
kathrina.szymborski@macarthurjustice.org -- for Professors Sharon
Dolovich, Alexander A. Reinert, Margo Schlanger, and John F.
Stinneford, amici curiae.
Nichad Davis and Benjamin I. Friedman --
BENJAMIN.FRIEDMAN@SIDLEY.COM -- Professors and Practitioners of
Psychiatry, Psychology, and Medicine, for amici curiae.
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Klein Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Benzion Klein, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northstar
Location Services, LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-09289 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
The Northstar Companies -- https://www.gotonls.com/ -- provides a
full-service receivables debt collection solution.[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
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Allegheny Sues Over 21.31% Stock Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEGHENY COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PALANTIR
TECHNOLOGIES INC., ALEXANDER C. KARP, DAVID GLAZER, and SHYAM
SANKAR, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02805-SKC (D. Colo., October
25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Palantir's business,
operations, and prospects in order to trade Palantir securities at
artificially inflated prices between February 16, 2021 and May 6,
2022. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i)
Palantir's investments in marketable securities were having a
significant negative impact on the Company's earnings per share
(EPS) results; (ii) Palantir overstated the sustainability of its
government segment's growth and revenues; (iii) Palantir was
experiencing a significant slowdown in revenue growth, particularly
among its government customers, despite ongoing global conflicts
and market disruptions; (iv) as a result of all the foregoing, the
Company was likely to miss consensus estimates for its first
quarter 2022 (Q1) EPS and second quarter 2022 (Q2) sales outlook;
and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times, says the
suit.
When the truth emerged, Palantir's stock price fell $2.02 per
share, or 21.31 percent, to close at $7.46 per share on May 9,
2022, damaging investors.
Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System is a county
government office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Palantir Technologies Inc. is a software company that specializes
in big data analytics, headquartered in Denver, Colorado. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER
600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 861-3003
Facsimile: (303) 536-7849
E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com
- and -
Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER PA
485 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 722-8500
Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
E-mail: dberger@gelaw.com
cmoyna@gelaw.com
POLY-WOOD LLC: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Giannaros Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Giannaros v. Poly-Wood,
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10351 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge William G.
Young entered an order granting motion to certify class for
settlement purposes and for final approval of the amended class
action settlement agreement by Stephen Giannaros.
The suit alleges violation of American with Disabilities Act.
Poly-Wood manufactures and distributes furniture.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 29
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SMITH, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:22-cv-00355-ECM-SMD (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Emily C. Marks
entered an order that the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
extension of time to file motion for class certification is
extended to April 29, 2023.
The Plaintiff filed his unopposed motion on October 19, 2022.
Progressive Direct underwrites auto, fire, marine, and casualty
insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fNTLAe at no extra charge.[CC]
RAINBOW CHILD: $151K in Fees and Costs Endorsed in Ramnarine Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RENA ANNE RAMNARINE, Plaintiff v. RAINBOW CHILD
DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Case No.
PWG-17-cv-02261 (D. Md.), Magistrate Judge Ajmel A. Quereshi of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern
Division, recommends that the Court grants in part and denies in
part the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Bill of Costs.
The lawsuit is a case concerning a childcare center's failure to
adequately pay one of its employees in accordance with state law.
Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's
Fees and Bill of Costs. The case has been referred to Judge
Quereshi for a report and recommendation.
On Aug. 9, 2017, Ramnarine filed a class action complaint against
the Rainbow Child Development Center (RCDC), Rainbow Academy, Inc.
(RA), Kim Terese Mitchell, LLC -- three Maryland-based corporations
that operate multiple child-care centers in the State -- and Kim
Terese Mitchell, owner of RCDC and RA. The Plaintiff specifically
alleged that the Defendants employed her and other similarly
situated individuals, working them in excess of 40 hours per week
while failing to pay them for all the hours they worked and failing
to provide an increased rate for any overtime. Among other things,
she alleged that she and other teachers were required to attend
mandatory meetings for which Defendants failed to lawfully pay
them.
Given the numerous individuals which the Plaintiff alleged were
affected by the Defendants' practices, she sought class relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 207 and 216;
the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Labor & Empl. Art. Section 3-415;
and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, Labor & Empl.
Art., Section 3-501, et seq. Among other forms of relief, she asked
the Court to certify the case as a class action, enter judgment
against the Defendants, award her reasonable attorney's fees and
costs, and enjoin the Defendants from taking future similar actions
in violation of federal and state labor laws.
On Sept. 28, 2017, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. In
response, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Although Kim
was dismissed from the case, the Defendants' Motion was denied as
Moot, given the filing of the Amended Complaint.
On Dec. 1, 2017, the case was referred to the Honorable Timothy J.
Sullivan for mediation. While the parties were preparing for
mediation, they also conducted discovery. While these motions were
pending and before the settlement conference could be conducted,
the Plaintiff sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, and
filed a Motion for Class Certification. The Second Amended
Complaint included allegations regarding the lack of payment to
Infant and Toddler Teachers, Assistants to Preschool Teachers, and
Infant Toddler Teacher Assistants, but deleted all allegations
against Kim.
On March 7, 2018, the Honorable Gina L. Simms held a hearing in the
case, after which the Court denied, as moot, the Motion to Quash
regarding the Defendants' bank statements, given the Plaintiff's
narrowing of her requests; and allowed the Plaintiff to collect
some discovery from the Defendants. It denied discovery regarding
Infant Toddler Teachers and Infant Toddler Teacher Assistants.
Although the Court deferred ruling on discovery related to
Assistants to Preschool Teachers, it subsequently denied discovery
as to this category, as well.
On March 8, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a
Third Amended Complaint. On March 9, 2018, the Court denied the
Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint. The
Plaintiff subsequently withdrew her Motion for Leave to file a
Third Amended Complaint, as well. She also filed a second Motion
for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, adding allegations
regarding the lack of payment for attendance at Mother's Day
recitals, which the Court also denied. She also raised objection to
the Court's prior discovery rulings, which the Court overruled.
On May 31, 2018, the Defendants moved for summary judgment. In
response, the Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment on the
same issue. On July 26, 2018, the Court held Oral Argument on all
pending motions. At the conclusion of the Argument, the Court: 1)
granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the
Plaintiff's claims under the FLSA and the Plaintiff's claims under
Maryland state law that she was not paid sufficient amounts for
overtime work; 2) denied the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment as to the Plaintiff's claim under state law that she was
not paid at all for certain mandatory meetings; and 3) denied, as
moot, the Plaintiff's class claims under the FLSA.
The Plaintiff later asked to certify these rulings as final
judgments so that she could appeal these rulings. On Nov. 7, 2018,
the parties met for mediation, but were unable to resolve the
case.
On Aug. 2, 2019, the Defendants filed a second Motion for Summary
Judgment. On March 2, 2020, the Court denied the Motion, reasoning
that the Defendants misunderstood the Court's prior rulings and
their lack of applicability to a teacher's claim that she was not
paid for attending meetings. It held that there remain material
questions of fact regarding whether the lunch meetings were
mandatory, the number and length of the meetings, and the
computation of the actual compensable time due to the Plaintiff.
The case will proceed to trial.
Over the course of the next year, the parties began preparations
for trial. On May 19, 2021, the parties met once last time in an
attempt to achieve a mediated resolution to the case. The mediation
again proved unsuccessful.
Beginning on June 7, 2021, the Court held a three-day bench trial
on the Plaintiff's claim under the MPWCL that she was not paid for
attending mandatory meetings. At the conclusion of trial, the Court
entered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of
$2,389.50, together with reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. Section 3-507.2(b). The
counsel for the Plaintiff was directed to file any motion for
attorneys' fees and costs in accordance with the Court's Local Rule
109. U.S. District Court, District of Maryland. Md. L.R. 109 (D.
Md. 2018).
On Aug. 20, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the Motion for Attorney's
Fees currently pending before the Court and submitted a Bill of
Costs. Specifically, she moved for an award of attorney's fees of
$151,611.91 and costs of $23,171.55. Her counsel acknowledged that
it had not been successful on all of its claims: in part because of
this, it had reduced its fees from the original amount of
$470,125.
On Sept. 24, 2021, the Defendants filed Oppositions to both the
Motion for Attorney's Fees and the Bill of Costs. On May 27, 2022,
the Motions were referred to Judge Querishi chambers for the
limited purpose of a Report and Recommendation regarding the
pending Motion for Attorney's Fees and Bill of Costs.
The dispute on attorneys' fees between the parties centers on: 1)
whether the Plaintiff's proposed rates are customary for like work;
2) the reasonableness of the amount of time and labor the
Plaintiff's counsel expended; 3) the novelty and difficulty of the
legal questions raised; 4) the skill required to properly perform
the legal services rendered; and 5) the amount in controversy and
the results obtained.
Judge Quereshi recommends that (i) Omar Vincent Melehy's rate and
Suvita Melehy's rates be reduced to $475 per hour; (ii) Andrew
Balashov be compensated at $300 per hour, as he has requested; and
(iii) recommends that the paralegal and law clerk rate be reduced
to $150 per hour. He does not recommend that the Court accepts the
Plaintiff's request for higher rates.
Judge Quereshi recommends further that (i) the Plaintiff be
reimbursed for 82.2 hours for time spent on summary judgment
motions; and (ii) Mr. Balashov's time at trial be compensated at a
reduced rate of $180 per hour.
In addition to attorney's fees, the Plaintiff also seeks
reimbursement of costs for the following amounts: a) $400 for fees
of the clerk; b) $1,273.77 for fees for service of summons and
subpoena; c) $11,380.38 for fees for printed or electronically
recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case; d)
$3,622.40 for fees for disbursements for printing; e) $195 for fees
for witnesses; and f) $600 for fees for exemplification and the
costs of making any copies where the copies were necessarily
obtained for use in the case. She additionally requests $5,700 for
postage, computerized on-line research, courier expenses, and
travel expenses. Altogether, she requests $23,171.55 in
reimbursable costs.
Among other things, Judge Quereshi finds that the Plaintiff has
adequately justified the need for an expedited version of the
transcript and has adequately justified and explained the $600 for
which she seeks reimbursement.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Quereshi recommends that the
Plaintiff's counsel be awarded $127,573.63, which reflects a
reduction in the hourly rates for the attorneys and paralegals, as
well as the exclusion of particular hours related to the
preparation of the Fee Petition and post-summary judgment
dispositive motions.
Additionally, he recommends that the Plaintiff's counsel be awarded
$23,090.30, reflecting an award of all of the Plaintiff's requested
costs minus $81.25 resulting from the wait time charge incurred
during one of her depositions.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of the Report and
Recommendation to the parties.
Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be served and
filed within 14 days, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Local
Rule 301.5(b).
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9d5ar6 from
Leagle.com.
RALPH MILLER: Court OKs Biolabs Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as New England Biolabs, Inc.
v. RALPH T. MILLER, Case No. 1:20-cv-11234 (D. Mass.), the Hon.
Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an order granting motion to
certify class of:
"All persons who former employees of New England Biolabs, Inc
and who are or were participants in the New England Biolabs,
Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust and whose
accounts were liquidated on or both after September 30, 2016,
through October 31, 2019, and the beneficiaries of such
participants."
Excluded from the Class are (a) the Third Party Defendants;
(b) officers and directors of NEB; (c) beneficiaries of such
persons or (d) immediate family members of any of the
foregoing excluded persons, and (e) the legal
representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded
persons.
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act involving employee benefits.
New England Biolabs produces and supplies recombinant and native
enzyme reagents for the life science research, as well as providing
products and services supporting genome editing, synthetic biology
and next-generation sequencing.[CC]
RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Sued Over Unsafe Levels of Fluorine
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Krakauer and Joyce Rockwood, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT, INC.
("REI"), Case No. 3:22-cv-05830 (W.D. Wash., Oct. 28, 2022), is
brought on behalf of similarly situated consumers who purchased the
Defendant's waterproof apparel (the "Products"), which are unfit
for their intended use because they contain heightened levels of
organic fluorine, which is itself indicative of unsafe per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS are readily absorbed into the body by various means, including
by oral, dermal, and inhalation exposure. Because PFAS persist and
accumulate over time, they are harmful even at very low levels.
Indeed, PFAS have been shown to have a number of toxicological
effects in laboratory studies and have been associated with thyroid
disorders, immunotoxic effects, and various cancers in epidemiology
studies. The highest concentrations of PFAS are often found in the
liver, kidneys, and blood.
The Defendant markets its products to consumers as "sustainable
gear built to last," and "Fair Trade Certified™." In addition,
Defendant publicly states that it is "working toward a sustainable
future" by developing "REI Product Sustainability Standards" and is
"raising the bar on chemical use in important categories such as
apparel." The Defendant also represents to prospective consumers
that "with every purchase you make with REI, you are choosing to
steward the outdoors, support sustainable business and help the
fight for life outside" and that REI is a member of the
"Sustainable Apparel Coalition," which helps "retailers and
manufacturers to measure their environmental and social impacts at
each stage of the value chain." Finally, regarding the use of PFAS
in its products, REI touts that is has "eliminated long-chain PFAS"
from its waterproof REI Co-Op brand.
Despite the representations made by Defendant to consumers
regarding the safety and sustainability of its products, research
has shown that these claims are false and misleading. Independent
research conducted by Toxic-Free Future, a nonprofit organization
that conducts scientific studies, revealed that REI Co-Op Westwinds
GTX Jacket (Women's), REI Co-Op Savanna Trails Pant (Men's), REI
Co-Op Drypoint GTX Jacket (Men's), and REI Co-Op Rainwall Rain
Jacket (Kids) all contain PFAS. Because several of the Products are
waterproof jackets meant to resist rain, consumers frequently use
the jackets' hoods, which rest directly against the skin, near the
nose, mouth, and eyes. As a result, consumers are at a heightened
risk of exposure to PFAS, including through ingestion, dermal
absorption, and inhalation.
Based on Defendant's representations, a reasonable consumer would
expect that the Products can be safely used as marketed and sold.
However, the Products are not safe, posing a significant health
risk to unsuspecting consumers. Nor are the Products sustainable,
as apparel produced with such high levels of organic fluorine is
not responsibly sourced and is not compostable. Instead, the
forever chemicals contained in the Products will never break down,
but rather persist and accumulate in the environment. Yet, neither
before or at the time of purchase does Defendant notify consumers
like Plaintiffs that their Products are unsafe, contain heightened
level of organic fluorine and certain named PFAS, or should
otherwise be used with caution.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring their claims against the Defendant
for violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act; breach of
implied warranty; breach of express warranty; fraud; constructive
fraud; fraudulent inducement; money had and received; fraudulent
omission or concealment; fraudulent misrepresentation; negligent
misrepresentation; quasi-contract / unjust enrichment; negligent
failure to warn; and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased the Defendant's Products.
The Defendant is an outdoor clothing apparel company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wright A. Noel, Esq.
CARSON & NOEL, PLLC
20 Sixth Avenue, NE
Issaquah, WA 98027
Phone: (425) 395-7786
Facsimile: (425) 837-5396
Email: wright@carsonnoel.com
- and -
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Sean L. Litteral, Esq.
Elvia M. Lopez, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
slitteral@bursor.com
elopez@bursor.com
- and -
Jonathan L. Wolloch, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
Email: jwolloch@bursor.com
RESTONIC SALES: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Restonic Sales, Inc.
The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Restonic Sales, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-06624 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Restonic -- https://restonic.com/ -- is a Manufacturing, Furniture,
and Consumer Goods company located in Buffalo, New York.[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
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Woolard Sues Over Misleading Labeling Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Woolard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC. & REYNOLDS CONSUMER
PRODUCTS, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-01684-TWR-NLS (S.D. Cal., Oct. 28,
2022), is brought seeking damages and an injunction to stop the
Defendant's false and misleading labeling practices with regard to
its The Hefty "Recycling" bags (the "Products").
The Hefty "Recycling" bags are sold in 13- and 30-gallon sizes.
Both sizes are sold in packaging depicted below. The illustration
depicts the front of a typical box of Hefty Recycling Bags.
Defendants place the prominent representation "RECYCLING" on the
front label of the Hefty "Recycling" trash bags with a green
background and white font. Next to the representation, Defendants
include images of the Hefty "Recycling" trash bags filled with
recyclable waste.
Despite the Defendants' representations, the Hefty "Recycling"
trash bags are not recyclable at California solid waste disposal
facilities and are not suitable for the disposal of recyclable
products at solid waste disposal facilities. Hefty "Recycling"
trash bags are made from low-density polyethylene and are not
recyclable at California's solid waste disposal facilities. When
Hefty "Recycling" trash bags are delivered by waste haulers to a
California solid waste disposal facility the bags and all of the
otherwise recyclable items contained within them are not delivered
to a recycling facility but are treated as regular solid waste
materials.
California's waste disposal facilities do not recycle either Hefty
"Recycling" trash bags or the recyclable materials contained in
them. The otherwise recyclable items (like cardboard, glass,
aluminum, etc.) placed into Hefty "Recycling" trash bags by
California consumers who are trying to recycle those items
ultimately end up in landfills or incinerators and are not
recycled.
Prior to his purchase, the Plaintiff saw and reviewed the
Defendants' advertising claims on the packaging and labeling
itself, and he made his purchase of the trash bags in reliance
thereon. The Plaintiff specifically relied upon representations
made by the Defendants that its Hefty Recycling bags were suitable
for recycling. Plaintiff did not receive the promised benefits or
receive the full value of his purchase. The Plaintiff would
purchase the Product in the future if it worked as advertised, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Hefty Recycling Trash Bags from a local
Walmart.
Reynolds Consumer Products, Inc. is a publicly traded corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the state of
Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
MANFRED, APC
600 West Broadway, Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 550-4005
Fax: (619) 550-4006
Email: mmuecke@manfredapc.com
RP ON-SITE: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Jones Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY RONSHAE JONES, as
an individual, on behalf of herself and the putative class, v. RP
ON-SITE, LLC, a Foreign Company registered to do business in the
State of California; and DOES 1 –10 inclusive, Case No.
2:22-cv-04367-MCS-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi
entered a scheduling order:
-- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off July 14,2023
-- Expert Disclosure (Initial) July 3, 2023
-- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal) July 31, 2023
-- Expert Discovery Cut-Off Aug. 28, 2023
-- Deadline to File a Motion Feb. 27, 2023
for Class Certification
-- Deadline to File an Opposition March 20, 2023
to the Motion for Class
Certification
-- Deadline to File a Reply April 10, 2023
in Support of the Motion
for Class Certification:
-- Hearing Date on Motion for May 1, 2023
Class Certification:
The Court will set additional dates, including pretrial and trial
dates, after a ruling on class certification is issued. To the
extent applicable, the Court orders the parties to comply with the
Order Re: Jury/Court Trial available on the Court’s
website, https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/honorable-mark-c-scarsi.
RealPage is an American multinational corporation that provides
property management software for the multifamily, commercial,
single-family and vacation rental housing industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WMw1Nv at no extra charge.[CC]
SAVANNAH COLLEGE OF ART: Abrams Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Savannah College
of Art and Design, Inc. The case is styled as Laura Abrams, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Savannah
College of Art and Design, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04297-LMM (N.D.
Ga., Oct. 28, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Fiduciary
Duty.
Savannah College of Art and Design -- https://www.scad.edu/ -- is a
private nonprofit art school with locations in Savannah, Georgia;
Atlanta, Georgia; and Lacoste, France.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
Piedmont Center
3535 Piedmont Road
Building 14, Ste 230
Atlanta, GA 30305
Phone: (706) 322-6226
Email: njackson@thefinleyfirm.com
- and -
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 E. Court Street, Suite 500
Cincinnati, OH 45002
Phone: (513) 651-3700
Fax: (513) 665-0219
Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com
SENATOR CONSTRUCTION: Faces Acuna Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR ACUNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SENATOR CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC. and ATIQ
REHMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-09151 (S.D.N.Y., October 25,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed as a construction assistant from April
2017 until February 2019.
Senator Construction Group Inc. is a construction company with a
principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
SILVERBACK THERAPEUTICS: Dresner Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BENJAMIN DRESNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SILVERBACK THERAPEUTICS,
INC., LAURA K. SHAWVER, JONATHAN PIAZZA, RUSS HAWKINSON, PETER
THOMPSON, VICKIE L. CAPPS, ROBERT HERSHBERG, SAQIB ISLAM, ANDREW
POWELL, JONATHAN ROOT, THILO SCHROEDER, and SCOTT PLATSHON,
Defendants, Case No. C21-1499 MJP (W.D. Wash.), Senior District
Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs bring the case as a potential class action alleging
negligence and securities fraud based on the premise that
Silverback, and the individually named Defendants, knew or should
have known that their developmental drug was not safe or effective
as an anti-tumor drug. Therefore, the filings with the Securities
and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), press releases and other reports
made by Defendants were false and misled investors.
Silverback is a biopharmaceutical company that seeks to develop
treatments for cancer, chronic viral infections, and other serious
diseases that express a protein called HER2. It developed its lead
drug candidate, SBT6050, as a novel treatment for these diseases.
SBT6050 is an Antibody-Drug Conjugate that targets tumors, such as
breast, gastric, and non-small cell lung cancers. The drug is
designed to activate myeloid cells, a class of immune cells that
can make up to 10% of the cells in a tumor, and in doing so,
promote direct tumor killing and recruitment of other immune cells
that can also have tumor killing properties.
In order for SBT6050 to be sold commercially, it must first undergo
a clinical trial involving three phases of human testing. Phase 1
trials are designed to determine the pharmacologic actions of the
drug in humans, the side effects associated with increasing doses,
and "if possible, to gain early evidence on effectiveness." The
case arises out of Silverback's disclosures surrounding the Phase 1
testing of SBT6050.
The Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on Nov. 5, 2021. They
formulated their claims as actions under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and SEC Rule 10b-5. Their Securities Act
claims pertain only to the Offering Documents, which the Plaintiffs
allege were prepared negligently.
The Plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims encompass all filings, press
releases, and statements made during the entire class period from
Dec. 3, 2020, to March 31, 2022. With regard to this claim, the
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants engaged in a plan, scheme,
conspiracy and course of conduct which operated as a fraud and
deceit upon the Plaintiffs. Similar to their Section 11 claim, they
premise this argument on the basis that the Defendants knew the
trial findings were indicative of the drug's eventual failure, yet
they continued to highlight only the positive findings giving the
false impression that the trial was going to be successful. They
claim that once the drug's limited success became known, the stock
dropped and they experienced financial losses.
The Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs
opposed.
The Defendants and the Plaintiffs have each requested that the
Court incorporates by reference a number of documents, mostly SEC
filings and press releases, which form the basis of the Plaintiffs'
complaint. The Plaintiffs request that Exhibits A-C be incorporated
by reference are documents that are also included in the
Defendants' request as well. The Defendants' Exhibits A-P are
incorporated by reference in the Complaint. Neither party opposes
consideration of the documents, and these documents form the basis
of Plaintiffs' claims. Judge Pechman grants the request to
incorporate by reference Exhibits A-C, and the Defendants' request
to incorporate by reference Exhibits A-P.
The Plaintiffs and the Defendants also request the Court takes
judicial notice of several analyst reports (the Plaintiffs'
Exhibits D and E, and the Defendants' Exhibits R-T). Because
neither Party objects to or disputes the authenticity or accuracy
of the reports, Judge Pechman grants the Plaintiffs' request to
take judicial notice of Exhibits D and E, and the Defendants'
Exhibits R-T as well.
Finally, the Defendants request the Court takes judicial notice of
Exhibits Q and U. Exhibit Q is the description of Silverback's
clinical trial for SBT6050 that is available at ClinicalTrials.gov,
a resource provided by the U.S. National Library of Medicine. The
information contained in Exhibit Q is not in dispute, therefore
Judge Pechman grants the Defendants' request.
Exhibit U is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's information
page on clinical research, which discusses the different phases of
clinical trials. While Exhibit U is not disputed by the Plaintiffs,
the Defendants appear to want to use this information to counter
Plaintiffs' claim that SBT6050 Phase 1/1b trial was designed to and
did evaluate efficacy, which is in dispute. Judge Pechman says she
cannot take judicial notice of this without potentially making a
finding on a disputed fact. As such, she denies the Defendants'
request to take judicial notice of Exhibit U.
In their Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants first move to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' Section 11 claim on the theory that it is subject
to the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 9(b), but that even if Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Rule 8(a) applies, the Plaintiffs still cannot meet that standard.
Judge Pechman agrees with them. She finds that the Plaintiffs'
Section 11 claim is comprised of paragraphs taken from the Offering
Documents and a concluding paragraph stating the claims are false
and misleading. The Plaintiffs do not attempt to explain what in
the paragraphs from the Offering Documents are false and
misleading, let alone why they are material. Their failure to do so
means that the claim does not clear even Rule 8(a) pleading
standards.
Section 10(b) and 10b-5 claims are subject to heightened pleading
standards under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 and Rule 9(b). The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have
failed to meet this standard.
Again, Judge Pechman agrees. She holds that the Plaintiffs'
pleading for the 10(b) claim follows the same format as their
Section 11 claim, and therefore contains all of the same issues.
The difference is, the Plaintiffs cannot skirt the higher pleading
requirements. Because the Plaintiffs fail to allege the
particularities of why the Defendants' statements are false and
misleading, as well as allegations of scienter, they fail to
satisfy the heightened pleading standards.
Finally, Section 15 and Section 20(a) both require underlying
primary violations of the securities laws. Because the Plaintiffs
have failed to adequately plead a violation of the federal
securities laws, their Section 15 and Section 20(a) claims are
dismissed without prejudice.
In light of the foregoing, Judge Pechman concludes that the
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint fails to allege with the
requisite particularity that Silverback and the individually named
Defendants made materially misleading statements and omissions in
the Offering Documents and during the class period in violation of
Section 11 of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act. She therefore grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss without
prejudice.
Should the Plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint, they
must do so within 30 days of the Order. Failure to do so will
result in a dismissal of their claims with prejudice.
The Clerk is ordered to provide copies of the Order to all
counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p9926br from Leagle.com.
SMASHBURGER IP: Agrees to Settle False Ads' Class Suit for $5.5-M
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Avery of Cnet.com wrote: Have you eaten at a Smashburger
restaurant? If so, you might be eligible for part of a $5.5 million
settlement the fast-casual chain has agreed to in order to resolve
a class action lawsuit.
According to a complaint filed in 2019, Smashburger CEO Tom Ryan
promoted the chain's Triple Double hamburgers as having "three
times the cheese and double the beef in every bite" in a 2017
marketing campaign.
But, the plaintiffs allege that the Triple Double was made with two
half-size patties, meaning it has the same amount of beef as the
company's regular-sized burger.
Smashburger did not respond to a request for comment. In court
filings, it denied any wrongdoing.
Smashburger, which has more than 312 corporate-owned and franchise
locations, agreed to the financial settlement in September and the
claims website is now live.
What's Smashburger accused of in the class action suit?
In 2017, Smashburger was sued by In-N-Out Burger, which alleged
that Smashburger's Triple Double burger infringed on the trademark
for In-N-Out's popular Double-Double burger.
In-N-Out also added false advertising charges, alleging that an
uncooked classic Smashburger patty weighed 5 ounces, while the
Triple Double burger was just made of two 2.5-ounce beef patties.
In a subsequent complaint filed in 2019, Smashburger customer Andre
Galvan said he purchased about 10 Triple Double burgers after being
misled about the amount of beef in the sandwiches.
Galvan's suit, which alleged fraud and false advertising, was
consolidated with other similar cases and granted class-action
status.
Who's eligible for payment?
Anyone in the US who purchased a Smashburger Triple Double, French
Onion Triple Double, Bacon Triple Double or Pub Triple Double
hamburger between July 1, 2017, and May 31, 2019, is eligible to
file a claim.
Proof of purchase is not required to receive compensation.
How much money could I receive?
If the settlement receives final approval, class members will be
eligible for a cash refund of $4 for each Double Triple hamburger
they purchased -- up to five burgers, for a total of $20.
In lieu of cash, they can also accept up to 10 vouchers entitling
them to upgrade a single-beef burger to a double-beef one (worth
about $2.50) with the purchase of a regularly priced entree.
Alternatively, the vouchers can be used to get a small fountain
soda at no additional cost (a $3 value).
The terms of the agreement provide for $2.5 million in cash and 1.5
million product vouchers, adding at least another $3 million to the
payout, according to a press announcement from Kroll, the firm
managing the settlement.
Read on: What Is a Class Action Lawsuit? How Do I File One?
How do I file a claim in the Smashburger suit?
If you believe you qualify for a payment under the settlement, you
can submit a claim form on the settlement website.
You can also request a claim form by calling 833-644-1593 or submit
one by mail to:
Smashburger Settlement
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration
PO Box 5324
New York, NY
10150-5324
When is the deadline to file a claim?
The deadline to file a claim to receive payment from the
Smashburger settlement is Jan. 17, 2023. All claims must be
electronically submitted or postmarked by that date.
The deadline to be excluded from the settlement and retain the
right to file separate litigation is Dec. 19, 2022.
When will I receive money in the Smashburger settlement?
A final hearing for approval of the payout is scheduled for Jan.
30, 2023. Once the hearing is adjourned and any objections and
appeals are resolved, cash payments and product vouchers will be
mailed within 45 days.
"If there are appeals, resolving them can take time -- potentially
more than a year," reads a statement on the settlement website.
"Please be patient."[GN]
SUITE NEW YORK: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Suite New York, LLC.
The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Suite New York, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-06625 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
SUITE NY -- https://www.suiteny.com/ -- is a full-service furniture
showroom specializing in mid-century modern and contemporary
designs for commercial and residential environments.[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
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Remains a Defendant in Mart Class Suit in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that in the
case captioned Brian Mart v. Tactile Systems Technology, Inc., et
al., File No. 0:20-cv-02074-NEB-BRT filed in Minnesota, the court
granted in part, and denied in part, the defendants' motion to
dismiss, and the Company remains a defendant on alleged Section
10(b) and 20(a) claims.
The Company and certain of the Company's present or former officers
have been sued in a purported securities class action lawsuit that
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota on September 29, 2020, and that is pending under the
caption Brian Mart v. Tactile Systems Technology, Inc., et al.,
File No. 0:20-cv-02074-NEB-BRT (the "Mart lawsuit").
On April 19, 2021, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against
the Company and eight of the Company's present and former officers
and directors. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of
investors who purchased the Company's common stock in the market
during the time period from May 7, 2018 through June 8, 2020
("alleged class period").
The Amended Complaint alleges the following claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"):
(1) that the Company and certain officer defendants made materially
false or misleading public statements about the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies, and results during the alleged
class period in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act; (2)
that the Company and the individual defendants engaged in a scheme
to defraud investors in order to allow the individual defendants to
sell the Company's stock in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act; (3) that the individual defendants engaged in
improper insider trading of the Company's stock in violation of
Section 20A of the Exchange Act; and (4) that the Company and the
individual defendants are liable under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act because each defendant is a controlling person.
On June 18, 2021, the Company and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
On March 31, 2022, the court granted in part, and denied in part,
the defendants' motion to dismiss. All claims against three
individual defendants were dismissed, and most claims against four
other individual defendants were dismissed.
The Company remains a defendant on alleged Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
claims. The Company is defending the action as it proceeds.
Tactile Systems Technology, Inc., a medical technology company that
develops and provides innovative medical devices for the treatment
of chronic diseases. The company is based in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
TENNESSEE: Chancery Court's Judgment in Oliver v. TDOSHS Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAYSPARKLES OLIVER v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY
AND HOMELAND SECURITY, Case No. M2021-00121-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App.),
the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirms the chancery
court's judgment:
a. reversing in part and vacating in part the decision of an
administrative law judge to order the Tennessee Department
of Safety and Homeland Security to return the seized
property to the purported owner; and
b. remanding the administrative decision for further
proceedings.
The narcotics unit of the Knox County Sheriff's Department
suspected that Victor Hines was involved in illegal drug activity.
As a result of their investigation, the officers obtained a warrant
to search the home. They found six ounces of cocaine, two ounces of
powder cocaine, and two firearms at that address. This discovery
led a judge to issue three warrants for Mr. Hines' arrest.
A short time later, officers made two more controlled drug
purchases from Mr. Hines at another residential location -- 818
Vermont Avenue owned by Mr. Hines's girlfriend, Ms. Oliver. Mr.
Hines owned an adjacent vacant lot under a known alias. The
officers obtained a warrant to search both 818 Vermont Avenue and
the adjacent lot. On May 10, 2017, the officers executed the
warrant. The search uncovered 59 Schedule II pills, $23,145 in U.S.
currency, and miscellaneous drug paraphernalia. Mr. Hines was
arrested. In addition to the contraband, the officers seized the
currency, a Nissan Juke, and a Chevrolet Impala.
An administrative law judge ordered the Tennessee Department of
Safety and Homeland Security to return the seized property to the
purported owner. The judge determined that the search warrant was
issued without probable cause, resulting in an illegal seizure.
And, if not, the Department failed to prove that it strictly
complied with the forfeiture statutes. The Department petitioned
for judicial review. After reviewing the administrative record, the
chancery court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the
administrative decision for further proceedings.
The Court of Appeals reviews forfeiture proceedings using the
judicial review standards in the Uniform Administrative Procedures
Act ("UAPA") as modified in the forfeiture statute.
First, Ms. Oliver argues that the chancery court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction to review the administrative decision. Judicial
review under the UAPA is generally limited to final decisions.
Looking to the substance of Ms. Oliver's pleading, the Court of
Appeals cannot agree that it is an authorized method of seeking
judicial review in a forfeiture action. The notice was conditional.
It would only be effective if the administrative order was final
and if the Department filed a petition for judicial review. Even
then, Ms. Oliver only asked the court to review "motions not ruled
on by the Administrative Judge; constitutional questions; and
issues not addressed by the Administrative Judge in the final
order." This was not a request for judicial review of a final
agency decision. As such, the chancery court properly dismissed
it.
Next, Ms. Oliver maintains that she established standing. The
administrative judge found that she was the registered owner of
both vehicles and the owner of the residence in which the seized
currency was found. The evidence does not preponderate against
these findings.
But, the Court of Appeals opines that Ms. Oliver only established
ownership of the two vehicles, not the currency. Ownership of the
residence in which the currency was found does not, by itself,
establish ownership of the currency. So the chancery court did not
err in remanding for a determination of standing.
Ms. Oliver then contends that Officer Bryant made recklessly false
statements in his affidavit and, without those false statements,
the affidavit did not establish probable cause to search her
residence.
The Court of Appeals opines that the information in the affidavit,
viewed as a whole, provided the magistrate with a substantial basis
for concluding that a search warrant would uncover evidence of
wrongdoing at 818 Vermont Avenue. Ms. Oliver's proof falls short.
In common parlance, "818 Vermont Avenue" describes more than the
residence at that address. It also encompasses the surrounding lot,
including the driveway. The statements in the affidavit describing
the location of the drug purchases were not false.
Ms. Oliver complains that the administrative record was assembled
after the hearing. And there is no proof that the hearing notice
was filed with the Administrative Procedures Division.
The Court of Appeals' review is based on the evidence in the
record. It finds that the administrative judge certified and
approved the contents of this record, which includes a timely
hearing notice. So the evidence preponderates against the
administrative finding that the Department failed to set Ms.
Oliver's claim on the hearing docket within the allotted time.
Finally, Ms. Oliver requests an award of attorney's fees on appeal
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988.
The Court of Appeals holds that it is questionable whether the
provisional notice of review sought to enforce federal civil rights
laws. But even assuming it did, he says Ms. Oliver is not entitled
to an award of attorney's fees on this basis. Attorney's fees may
only be awarded to a prevailing party. Ms. Oliver did not prevail
in her state court action.
The Court of Appeals concludes that the administrative order was
final. The chancery court had subject matter jurisdiction to
adjudicate the Department's petition for judicial review. It
properly dismissed the provisional notice of review because it did
not seek the same relief. The Court of Appeals also concludes that
the agency decision violated constitutional and statutory
provisions and was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence
in the record. So it affirms the chancery court's judgment.
The motion for a qualified administrative judge, motion to dismiss,
and motion to maintain a class action do not appear in the
administrative record.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yc5w54u2 from Leagle.com.
Herbert S. Moncier -- moncier@moncierlaw.com -- Knoxville,
Tennessee, for the Appellant, DaySparkles Oliver.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter, Andree
Sophia Blumstein, Solicitor General, and Miranda Jones, Assistant
Attorney General, for the Appellee, Tennessee Department of Safety
and Homeland Security.
TERRA BEAUTY PRODUCTS: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Terra Beauty
Products, Inc. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terra Beauty
Products, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09333-AT (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Terra Beauty -- https://terrabeautybars.com/ -- is a beauty trading
company that develops, manufactures and distributes cosmetic,
personal care, sanitizing and disinfecting solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
TIMBERLAND BANK: Court Dismisses Rieken Class Suit With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHERYL RIEKEN, Plaintiff v. TIMBERLAND BANK,
Defendant, Case No. C22-5385 BHS (W.D. Wash.), Judge Benjamin H.
Settle of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma:
a. dismisses the case with prejudice;
b. denies as moot the Defendant Timberland Bank's Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); and purported-Plaintiff Angela
Ruth's Motion to Remand; and
c. denies Ruth's Motion to Deem Defendant's Rule 12 Motion
Moot or, in the Alternative, to Notify the Trustee Per
Rule 17(a)(3) and for Leave to Add Angela Ruth Under
Rule 21.
Ms. Rieken filed a class action complaint against Timberland in
Pierce County Superior Court in April 2022. She alleges that
Timberland improperly charged her and others like her certain
insufficient funds fees and overdraft fees. She raises state law
claims alleging breach of contract, violation of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the
Consumer Protection Act, RCW Ch. 19.86.
Timberland removed the case to federal court based on "related to"
bankruptcy jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1334 and 1452. It
asserts that Rieken's claims are related to her bankruptcy
proceeding because the claims arose in April 2019 and May 2020 --
before she filed for bankruptcy in March 2021. As a result,
Rieken's claims belong to the bankruptcy estate.
Timberland asks the Court to dismiss Rieken's claims, arguing she
is judicially estopped from bringing her claims because she did not
disclose them in her bankruptcy proceeding. It also contends that
federal law preempts Rieken's claims and that Rieken fails to state
plausible claims for relief on any of her claims.
In response to Timberland's motion to dismiss, Rieken amended her
complaint as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1)(B). This
amended complaint purported to remove Rieken as the named Plaintiff
and substitute herself with a new plaintiff, Ruth. Ruth, as the
purported named Plaintiff, moves to remand the case to state court,
arguing that, now that Ms. Rieken is no longer in the case, the
action is no longer related to Rieken's bankruptcy proceeding. She
claims the Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Ruth
also asserts that, even if the action is related to Rieken's
bankruptcy proceeding, it would be subject to discretionary remand
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1452(b).
Ms. Ruth also moves to deem Timberland's motion to dismiss moot in
light of her amended complaint. She argues in the alternative that,
if the amended complaint is not valid and Rieken remains the named
plaintiff in the action, Rieken should be granted leave to both
notify the bankruptcy trustee of the action under Rule 17(a)(3) and
add Ruth as a party under Rule 21. She also moves in the
alternative to reset or moot the deadline to respond to
Timberland's motion to dismiss.
Timberland argues that Rieken was not entitled to amend the
complaint under Rule 15 to substitute Ruth as the named Plaintiff
and, therefore, the amended pleading did not moot the motion to
dismiss. It also argues that Rieken's request for discretionary
remand under 28 U.S.C. Section 1452(b) is waived because she was
required to make this request within 30 days of removal under 28
U.S.C. Section 1447(c). Finally, it asserts that, because Rieken's
claims belong to her bankruptcy estate, she lacks standing to amend
the complaint to substitute Ruth into the action and, instead, the
Court must dismiss the action.
Judge Settle must determine whether Rieken was entitled to amend
the complaint to substitute Ruth as the named Plaintiff. To make
this determination, he first considers whether Rieken has standing
to sue. He finds that Rieken's attempt to amend the complaint to
substitute Ruth as the named Plaintiff was ineffective.
Ms. Rieken does not satisfy her burden under Rule 17(a)(3). She
cannot establish that it was difficult to determine that the
bankruptcy trustee was the real party in interest. She also does
not argue or present any evidence that an understandable mistake
was made in bringing the action in her own name. Accordingly, the
amended complaint does not function as the operative complaint, and
it does not moot Timberland's motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, Judge Settle dismisses the case with prejudice and
denies Rieken's motion for leave to notify the bankruptcy trustee.
Because Rieken lacks the authority to prosecute the case under Rule
17(a)(1), he also denies her motion for leave to add Ruth as a
party under Rule 21. Furthermore, because Rieken was not authorized
to amend the complaint to substitute Ruth as the named Plaintiff,
she denies as moot the motion to remand.
Additionally, because the case is dismissed for failure to
prosecute in the name of the real party in interest -- a basis not
raised in Timberland's motion to dismiss -- Judge Settle denies as
moot the motion to dismiss. As such, he denies as moot Rieken's
motion to deem Timberland's Rule 12(b)(6) motion moot. Finally, he
also denies as moot Rieken's motion for leave to oppose
Timberland's motion to dismiss.
The Clerk will enter a judgment and close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/msdcfhmf from Leagle.com.
TODD PIPE AND SUPPLY: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rene Hernandez, an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Todd Pipe and Supply, LLC, Todd
Pipe Holdings, Inc., Morsco Supply, LLC, Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 22STCV30190 was removed from the Los Angeles
County Superior Court o, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Oct. 28, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-07892-SB-PLA to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt.
Relations.
Todd Pipe & Supply, LLC -- https://toddpipe.reece.com/ -- operates
as a plumbing supply distributor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Diego F. Aviles, Esq.
Robert Barkev Payaslyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC
8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
diego@tomorrowlaw.com
robert@tomorrowlaw.com
- and -
Henry Aaron Elyashar, Esq.
ELYASHAR LAW FIRM APC
9663 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 1052
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: (818) 584-2617
Email: henry@elyasharlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Keith A Jacoby, Esq.
Rachael Sarah Lavi, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
2049 Century Park East 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
Phone: (310) 553-0308
Fax: (310) 553-5583
Email: kjacoby@littler.com
rlavi@littler.com
- and -
Alyssa S Gjedsted, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
633 West 5th Street 63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 443-4300
Fax: (213) 443-4299
Email: agjedsted@littler.com
TURBIE TWIST LP: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Turbie Twist, LP. The
case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Turbie Twist, LP, Case No.
1:22-cv-09320 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Turbie Twist -- https://www.turbietwist.com/ -- is the world's
leading hair towel brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
U.S. RENAL CARE: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Earned and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shawntia Smith, on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. U.S. RENAL CARE, INC., a
Texas Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-05979 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 31,
2022), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act
against the Defendants for unpaid earned wages and overtime wages.
The Plaintiff worked hours in excess of 40 in a workweek, including
work that was not recorded or accounted for by Defendant's time
keeping system (hereinafter referenced as "work off the clock")
and, in work weeks in which she worked in excess of forty hours
including the work off the clock, was denied time and one-half
compensation for all such hours. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant's management employees, altered and reduced the
electronic timesheets of Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff
Class, including other dialysis technicians, nurses and front
office staff, which resulted in non-payment of earned wages and
overtime wages, in order to avoid the obligations imposed by the
federal and state laws, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly "dialysis technician" from
April 2020 to September 2021.
U.S. RENAL CARE, INC. provides dialysis services and treatments for
patients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John W. Billhorn, Esq.
Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 853-1450
UNION PACIFIC: Relief From Judgment Nixed; Blankinship Stays Closed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, James Blankinship, Plaintiff v. Union Pacific Railroad
Company, Defendant, Case No. CV-21-00072-TUC-RM (D. Ariz.), Judge
Rosemary Marquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona denies Blankinship's Motion for Relief from Judgment from
the Court's Sept. 6, 2022 Order granting Union Pacific's Motion for
Summary Judgment and entry of Final Judgment.
The Federal Railroad Administration ("FRA") regulations require
railroad conductors to pass a vision acuity examination which tests
a conductor's ability to distinguish the colors of railroad
signals. If an individual fails to meet the visual acuity
thresholds, on request, they would be subjected to further medical
evaluations to determine the individual's ability to safely perform
as a conductor. The further evaluation employed by Union Pacific
consists of a Color Vision Field Test ("CVFT") which measures the
speed and accuracy of an individual's ability to identify railroad
signals.
In 2016, the Defendant implemented a revised CVFT, known as the
Light Cannon Test. The parties dispute whether the Light Cannon
Test meets the FRA requirements that the testing be valid,
reliable, and comparable.
The Plaintiff underwent color vision testing for the FRA
recertification process on three separate occasions before the
implementation of the Light Cannon Test. Ultimately, it was
determined that he did not meet the requirements for
recertification, and he was removed from the conductor position.
In February 2016, Union Pacific employees initiated a class action
(Harris v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 329 F.R.D. 616 (D. Neb. 2019))
alleging disability discrimination; a class action in which the
Court recognized the Plaintiff to be a putative class member. The
initial class definition from the Harris complaint focused on
employees removed from service for reasons relating to a
fitness-for-duty evaluation.
However, on Aug. 17, 2018, the Harris plaintiffs narrowed the
operative class definition when moving for class certification on
the disparate treatment claim only and defined the class as: "All
individuals who have been or will be subject to a fitness-for-duty
examination as a result of a reportable health event at any time
from Sept. 18, 2014 until the final resolution of this action."
On Feb. 5, 2019, the District of Nebraska certified the class as
defined in the Aug. 17, 2018 class definition. However, on March
24, 2020, the Eighth Circuit reversed the District of Nebraska and
denied class certification. Therefore, on April 10, 2020, the
Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). On Feb. 20, 2021, he
initiated the instant action with a First Amended Complaint ("FAC")
filed on March 24, 2021 alleging violations under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
On June 7, 2022, the Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
On July 7, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Response. After the
Defendant's Reply, on Sept. 6, 2022, this Court granted the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. As a result, the
Plaintiff's two remaining claims from his FAC were dismissed with
prejudice as time barred for failure to exhaust his administrative
remedies within the allowable time.
On Sept. 20, 2022, the Plaintiff filed this pending Motion. In his
Motion, he attaches 12 exhibits totaling 645 pages to argue that he
should be relieved from final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(3) and 60(d)(3) because Union Pacific committed a fraud on
the Court. The Plaintiff claims the Defendant grossly
misrepresented the definition of the term "reportable health event"
and the record and procedural history of Harris. Blankinship
asserts he, along with numerous other color vision plaintiffs, was
included on the class list provided by Union Pacific. Yet now at
summary judgment in this case, the Defendant is attempting to
redefine the class to remove Blankinship.
Additionally, the Plaintiff argues relief from judgment is
justified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), 60(b)(6) and 59(e) due to
either a mistake by the court, extraordinary circumstances, or
clear error respectively.
On Oct. 4, 2022, the Defendant filed its Response requesting the
Court to reject the Plaintiff's inaccurate accusations and deny his
Motion. Among other things, it states that the Plaintiff provided
no specific evidence of clear error nor any extraordinary
circumstances to justify relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(1), 60(b)(6), or 59(e).
In his Oct. 11, 2022 reply, the Plaintiff reiterates that the
District of Nebraska certified a class that included him and that
he remained a member of the class until the Eighth Circuit reversed
class certification on March 24, 2020. He concludes his Reply by
requesting that the Court remedies the mistake made because of
Union Pacific's misrepresentations.
Judge Marquez finds that the Plaintiff attaches nearly 650 pages of
exhibits to his Motion. This newly presented evidence, she
concludes, is neither recently discovered nor does the Plaintiff
indicate why the information was not presented earlier. She holds
that the Plaintiff offers no valid reason why he could not have
made these arguments and presented this evidence in his Opposition
to the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
First, Judge Marquez does not find that the Defendant engaged in
fraudulent conduct by contesting the Plaintiff's interpretation of
the relevant facts or by arguing that he was not a member of the
certified class.
Second, undisputedly, the Plaintiff was not included in the class
definition when the Harris plaintiffs moved for certification, and
that remains true. Therefore, tolling ceased once the Plaintiff had
adequate notice he was not included in the operative class
definition. This occurred on Aug. 17, 2018, and because he failed
to file his charge with the EEOC within 300 days of this date, his
FAC was correctly dismissed as time barred. Judge Marquez is not
convinced that the Court made a mistake in its Sept. 6, 2022 Order
granting the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Finally, relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) is inapplicable.
Judge Marquez finds no extraordinary circumstances to justify
granting the Plaintiff relief, nor are there any circumstances
beyond the Plaintiff's control that prevented him from making these
arguments in his Opposition to the Defendant's Summary Judgment
Motion. Given that relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) is to
be reserved for extraordinary cases, and used sparingly, it would
be inappropriate for the Court to grant him relief under this
theory.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment is
denied, and the case is to remain closed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2jux3nya from Leagle.com.
UNITED STATES: Garrison Appeals Suit Dismissal to 7th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK GARRISON, et al., are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their amended complaint in the lawsuit entitled Frank
Garrison, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
MIGUEL CARDONA, in his official capacity as U.S. Secretary of
Education, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01895-RLY-TAB, the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
Frank Garrison brought this suit against the Secretary of the
Department of Education and the Department itself to prevent the
Department from implementing student debt relief plan, which will
tax Garrison and similarly situated Pell Grant recipients
approximately $1,000 dollars more than before they received
relief.
On October 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
which added an additional Plaintiff, Noel Johnson. The Amended
Complaint also alleges the beginnings of a class action suit for a
putative class of "all persons who qualify for impending automatic
loan cancellation and reside in states imposing tax obligations for
any amount of debt cancelled." The Plaintiffs then moved for a
temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and to
certify this class.
On October 21, 2022, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint without prejudice through an Order entered by Judge
Richard L. Young. The Court determined that the Plaintiffs failed
to establish that the student loan relief plan fairly caused their
injury. The Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge that plan and
this case did not present a justiciable controversy, ruled the
court.
The Plaintiffs' Motions to Certify Class for a Preliminary
Injunction and for a Temporary Restraining Order were denied as
moot. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
and Motion for Extension of Time to File Response were also denied
as moot.
The appellate case is captioned Frank Garrison, et al. v. U.S.
Department of Education, et al., Case No. 22-2886, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on October
24, 2022. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees FRANK GARRISON, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Caleb Kruckenberg, Esq.
Michael A. Poon, Esq.
PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION
3100 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 1000
Arlington, VA 22201
Telephone: (202) 888-6881
E-mail: CKruckenberg@pacificlegal.org
MPoon@pacificlegal.org
US BANCORP: Portnoy Firm Files Lawsuit Over Securities Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises U.S. Bancorp ("U.S. Bancorp" or the
"Company") (NYSE: USB) investors that a class action has been filed
on behalf of investors. U.S. Bancorp investors that lost money on
their investment are encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by
phone at 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss
their legal rights or click here:
https://portnoylaw.com/u-s-bancorp/ to join the case via
www.portnoylaw.com. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a
complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for
pursuing claims to recover their losses.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that:
(1) U.S. Bank created sales pressure on its employees that led them
to open credit cards, lines of credit, and deposit accounts without
consumers' knowledge and consent;
(2) since at least 2015, U.S. Bank and by extension, U.S. Bancorp,
was aware of such unauthorized conduct and that it was violating
relevant regulations and laws aimed at protecting its consumers;
(3) U.S. Bancorp failed to properly monitor its employees from
engaging in such unlawful conduct, detect and stop the misconduct,
and identify and remediate harmed consumers;
(4) all the foregoing subjected the Company to a foreseeable risk
of heightened regulatory scrutiny or investigation;
(5) U.S. Bancorp's revenues were in part the product of unlawful
conduct and thus unsustainable; and
(6) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Investors can visit Portnoy's website to review more information
and submit their transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims caused
by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered
over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
US DOMINION: Cooper Appeals RICO Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER L. COOPER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Jennifer L. Cooper, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. US
Dominion, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-CV-02672-PAB-STV,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
The Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit against the Defendants alleging
four claims: (1) violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act ("RICO"), (2) deprivation of equal protection by
Dominion's state action, (3) deprivation of First Amendment by
Dominion's state action, and (4) civil conspiracy.
The Plaintiffs, who are Michigan citizens, were "poll watchers" or
"poll challengers" in Michigan during the 2020 general election.
The Plaintiffs each claim to have witnessed numerous problems or
irregularities on Election Day. The Plaintiffs believe that they
have been silenced from speaking about various topics, including a
Michigan report on the 2020 election.
On February 28, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' complaint, which the Court granted through an Order
entered by Judge Philip A. Brimmer. The Court determined that the
Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that Dominion's allegedly
discriminatory conduct occurred under color of state law.
The appellate case is captioned Cooper, et al. v. US Dominion,
Inc., et al., Case No. 22-1361, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on October 24, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants' docketing statement was due on November 7, 2022;
-- Appellants' transcript order form was due on November 7,
2022; and
-- Appellants' and Appellees' notice of appearance was due on
November 7, 2022. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JENNIFER L. COOPER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Douglas A. Daniels, Esq.
DANIELS & TREDENNICK
6363 Woodway Drive, Suite 700
Houston, TX 77057
Telephone: (713) 917-0024
- and -
Robert A. McGuire, III, Esq.
ROBERT MCGUIRE LAW FIRM
1624 Market Street, Suite 226
PMB 86685
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (720) 420-1395
Defendants-Appellees US DOMINION, INC., et al. are represented by:
Bridget DuPey, Esq.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK
410 17th Street, Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 223-1100
- and -
Rodney Alan Smolla, Esq.
4601 Concord Pike
Wilmington, DE 19803
Telephone: (864) 373-3882
VANGUARD MARKETING: Ortiz Sues Over Unlawful Use of Voice Prints
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yrasema Ortiz, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. VANGUARD MARKETING CORPORATION, Case No.
3:22-cv-01685-RBM-JLB (N.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2022), is brought
against the Defendant to put an end to its unlawful use,
examination, and recording of the Plaintiff's 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 the
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 Plaintiff 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, the Defendant disregards California residents'
statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully examines or
records their voices in violation of CIPA. Specifically, the
Defendant has violated (and continues to violate) CIPA because it
uses a system which examines or records California residents'
"voice prints or voice stress patterns to determine the truth or
falsity of statements" without their express written consent, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff has called the Defendant and spoken with
representatives on the telephone.
The Defendant is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal
place of business located in Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Swigart (SBN 225557)
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: 866-219-3343
Fax: 866-219-8344
Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com
- and -
Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: 619-222-7429
Email: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com
WAKEMED HEALTH: Matthiae Files Suit in E.D. North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WakeMed Health and
Hospitals. The case is styled as Linda Matthiae, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. WakeMed Health and
Hospitals, Case No. 5:22-cv-00433-D (E.D.N.C., Oct. 28, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Personal Injury.
WakeMed Health and Hospitals -- https://www.wakemed.org/ -- is a
919-bed healthcare system with multiple facilities placed around
the metropolitan Raleigh, North Carolina area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: sharris@milberg.com
WASTE CONNECTIONS: Class Cert Discovery Completion Due Dec 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sunshine Children's
Learning Center, LLC v. Waste Connections of Florida, Inc., Case
No. 0:21-cv-62123 (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Beth Bloom entered an
order on motion for extension of time of discovery cutoff
deadline.
The parties shall complete class certification discovery on or
before December 15, 2022, says Judge Bloom.
The nature of suit states other contract.
Sunshine is an educational daycare facility located in Tampa,
Florida.
Waste Connections offers trash pickup, dumpster rentals, recycling,
and garbage pickup services.[CC]
WEBMD LLC: Bid to Dismiss Lebakken's 1st Amended VPPA Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEBRA LEBAKKEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEBMD, LLC, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 1:22-CV-644-TWT (N.D. Ga.), Judge Thomas W.
Thrash, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, Atlanta Division, denies WebMD's Motion to Dismiss the
First Amended Complaint.
The lawsuit is a putative class action case brought under the Video
Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"). The case arises under the VPPA
from allegations that WebMD improperly disclosed personally
identifiable information ("PII") of the Plaintiffs to Facebook
through an online tool called the Facebook Tracking Pixel.
WebMD owns and operates the popular website, WebMD.com, which
provides online health information and medical news to individuals
and generates revenue through advertising on its website. It
delivers some of that health and medical information to individuals
through videos, and it allegedly refines content for specific
viewers based on prior videos they have watched on the website.
Such content refining is made possible through data aggregators
like Facebook, which harvest activity data of online users to
create custom audiences and other similar tools for targeted
advertising.
On its website, WebMD hosts one of Facebook's data aggregation
tools, the Facebook Tracking Pixel, to analyze the online activity
of WebMD users. Lebakken alleges in detail how WebMD's Facebook
Tracking Pixel records user activity, transmits that data to
Facebook, and employs the aggregated data to improve the targeting
of its online content to WebMD users.
Ms. Lebakken created a Facebook account in 2007 and a WebMD account
in 2017, the latter requiring her to submit her email address and
birthday to create the account. She also provided her email address
to WebMD to receive an e-newsletter, which frequently contained
video content. She alleges that when she watched videos on
WebMD.com, WebMD disclosed her Facebook ID, her email address, and
the video detail, along with other information, to Facebook.
On Feb. 15, 2022, Lebakken brought the present action, on behalf of
herself and the putative class, seeking damages for the alleged
violations of the VPPA. WebMD now moves to dismiss the claims in
Lebakken's First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
WebMD moves to dismiss the FAC, arguing that Lebakken has failed to
state a claim under the VPPA. In support of its motion to dismiss,
WebMD first argues that Lebakken is not a consumer of any video
service, then argues that any disclosure of Lebakken's information
did not constitute PII, and finally argues that WebMD did not
disclose any PII knowingly.
Judge Thrash opines that Lebakken has adequately pleaded that she
was a subscriber under the VPPA and has adequately stated a claim
as a consumer under the VPPA. He finds that Lebakken alleges more
than just the free downloading of a mobile application onto her
smartphone; she alleges that she exchanged her email address to
receive the WebMD e-newsletter and that she also created her own
WebMD account. He also finds that Lebakken has plausibly pleaded
that WebMD's e-newsletter constitutes a good or service under the
VPPA.
Judge Thrash opines further that Lebakken adequately alleged that
WebMD disclosed her Facebook ID and email address in connection
with her video viewing information to Facebook and that the
disclosure of such information constituted a disclosure of PII,
supporting a plausible claim under the VPPA. Whether Lebakken had
recently logged into her Facebook account, such that transmission
of her Facebook ID upon viewing WebMD videos would be possible, is
a question of fact appropriate for resolution at a later stage in
this litigation. For now, he finds sufficient that Lebakken has
alleged the disclosure itself. Accordingly, WebMD is not entitled
to dismissal of the FAC on this ground.
Finally, Judge Thrash opines that the Court is not faced with
evaluating evidence that WebMD knew Facebook would combine the
video viewing and identity information of its consumers; rather,
the question is whether the allegations of the FAC plausibly state
a claim under the VPPA upon which relief may be granted. He finds
that Lebakken does plausibly allege WebMD's conscious transmission
of its consumers' private information, and thus, WebMD is not
entitled to dismissal of the First Amended Complaint on that
ground.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4vdv8szb from Leagle.com.
WESTLAKE ROYAL: Servin Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ELVIA SERVIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WESTLAKE ROYAL STONE, LLC; BORAL STONE
PRODUCTS, LLC; IRUNDY RAMOS; DARREN SCHULZ; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 22CV000957, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Napa, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on October 26, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-06544 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all wages due, including regular and
overtime wages; failure to provide rest periods or premium
compensation in lieu thereof; failure to keep accurate payroll
records and provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to
pay all wages earned and owed at separation of employment; and
unfair business practices.
Westlake Royal Stone, LLC is an architectural stone veneer
supplier, headquartered in Texas.
Boral Stone Products, LLC is a manufacturer of cultured stone
veneer products, headquartered in Georgia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
John S. Battenfeld, Esq.
Tuyet T. Nguyen Lu, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 612-2500
Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
E-mail: john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com
tuyet.nguyen@morganlewis.com
WHELAN SECURITY: Teems Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Teems, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees
v. WHELAN SECURITY OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; GARDAWORLD
SECURITYCORPORATION; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
22STCV34844 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 1, 2022), is
brought under the Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004 for the
Defendants' violation of the Labor Code by failing to pay the
Plaintiff proper compensation.
The Defendants' violated the Labor Code based on the Defendants'
failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage and all
overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay; failure to
authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant meal
periods or pay meal period premium wages; failure to authorize or
permit all legally required and/or compliant rest periods or pay
rest period premium wages; indemnification for all necessary
expenditures or losses incurred by employees in direct consequence
of discharging their duties; failure to pay wages for accrued paid
sick time at the regular rate of pay; statutory penalties for
failure to timely pay earned wages during employment; statutory
penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements;
statutory waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages
for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation
of employment, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in an hourly position
at the Defendants' location in Los Angeles from in or around
September 2021, until on or about April 6, 2022.
WHELAN SECURITY OF CALIFORNIA, INC. is authorized to do business
within the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Danielle E. Montero, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
dmontero@lelawfirm.com
wht2@lelawfirm.com
WILLIAM DOUGLAS: Carpenter Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN K. CARPENTER is taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing her lawsuit entitled Susan Carpenter, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated trustee for H. Joe King,
Jr. Revocable Trust, Plaintiff, v. William Douglas Management,
Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00019-RJC-DCK, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the North Carolina Superior Court for
Mecklenburg County to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, was brought by the Plaintiff against
the Defendants for violations of the Transfer Fee Covenant
Prohibition Act, the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, and the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, as well
as negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, civil
conspiracy. The Plaintiff sought declaratory judgment for
Defendants' collection of fees Plaintiff characterizes as unlawful
transfer fees.
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint, which the Court granted through an Order entered by
Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr. on September 29, 2022. The Court ruled
that the Plaintiff's complaint failed to demonstrate that the fees
were not actually lawfully owed and due.
The appellate case is captioned Susan Carpenter v. William Douglas
Management, Inc., Case No. 22-2106, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 24, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on December 5, 2022; and
-- Response Brief is due on January 4, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant SUSAN K. CARPENTER, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated trustee for H. Joe King, Jr.
Revocable Trust, is represented by:
Scott Crissman Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 West Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5003
- and -
Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 West Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5016
- and -
Jeremy Richard Williams, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 West Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5017
Defendants-Appellees WILLIAM DOUGLAS MANAGEMENT INC., et al. are
represented by:
Jeffrey Brandt Kuykendal, Esq.
MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLC
P.O. Box 30307
Charlotte, NC 28230
Telephone: (704) 643-6303
- and -
Steven Ari Meckler, Esq.
SHUMAKER LOOP & KENDRICK, PLLC
101 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28280
Telephone: (704) 945-2187
- and -
Philip M. Oliss, Esq.
JONES DAY
901 Lakeside Avenue, North Point
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 586-7164
- and -
Alexander Walton Prunka, Esq.
JONES DAY
901 Lakeside Avenue, North Point
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 586-1327
- and -
Frederick Martin Thurman, Jr., Esq.
SHUMAKER LOOP & KENDRICK, PLLC
101 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28280
Telephone: (704) 375-0057
WINS FINANCE: Kamau Shareholder Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------
Wins Finance Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for
the fiscal period ended June 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 3, 2022, that the shareholder class
action captioned Kamau v. Wins Finance Holdings, Inc., et al is
pending in court since June 30, 2020.
On July 24, 2020, Samuel Kamau filed a shareholder class action
complaint in the District Court for the Central District of
California seeking unspecified monetary damages for alleged
violations of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934
during the period from October 31, 2018 to July 6, 2020 against
Wins Finance Holdings Inc., Renhui Mu, and Junfeng Zhao (entitled
Kamau v. Wins Finance Holdings, Inc., et al.; C.D. Cal. Case No.
2:20-cv-06656). Plaintiff's initial complaint alleges, among other
things, that Defendants purportedly violated the securities laws by
failing to disclose that the repayment of a RMB 580 million "loan"
to Guohong Asset Management Co., Ltd. was "highly uncertain," and
that the resignation of the Company's former independent auditor
was "foreseeably likely" given the non-payment of the foregoing
loan as well as alleged material weaknesses in the Company's
control over financial reporting.
As of this date and to the best of our knowledge, neither Wins
Finance nor the individual Defendants have been served or have
agreed to accept service of the summons and complaint. As of this
date, Plaintiff has not filed an affidavit of service with the
Court concerning service upon any Defendant.
In accordance with procedural rules applicable to such securities
class actions, motions for appointment as lead plaintiff(s) and
lead counsel were filed on or before September 24, 2020, following
the Court's resolution of which it is common for the
newly-appointed lead plaintiff(s) to amend the complaint and
allegations underlying the claims.
There is not any update progress since from June 30, 2020.
Wins Finance Holdings Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
financing solutions for small and medium enterprises in the
People's Republic of China. It provides financial guarantee and
leasing services, as well as financial advisory, consultancy, and
agency services in Jinzhong City, Shanxi Province, and Beijing. The
company is headquartered in New York, New York. Wins Finance
Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Freeman FinTech Corporation
Limited.
WORKHORSE INC: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Derivative Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Workhorse Group Inc. (Nasdaq: WKHS) ("Workhorse" or "the Company"),
an American technology company focused on pioneering the transition
to zero-emission commercial vehicles, today announced that it has
entered into binding term sheets that will resolve the previously
disclosed securities class action lawsuit pending in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California and
the related shareholder derivative actions pending in the Central
District of California, the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada, State District Court of Nevada and certain
other jurisdictions.
The settlement class in the class action consists of purchasers of
Workhorse stock or other securities between March 10, 2020, and May
10, 2021, seeking to recover damages under the federal securities
laws for statements made by Workhorse during that time period.
Under the terms of the settlement of the class action and in the
resolution of all claims, Workhorse will pay $15 million in cash,
which will be funded fully by proceeds of available insurance, and
$20 million payable in Workhorse stock. Under the terms of the
settlement of the shareholder derivative actions, the Company will
adopt and/or agree to continue to maintain a series of corporate
governance changes regarding the Company's compliance program and
internal controls. The settlements will contain no admission of
liability, wrongdoing, or responsibility by any of the defendants
(including Workhorse) and full releases of all defendants. The
settlements will be subject to final documentation, public notice,
and court approval by the Central District of California (for the
class action) and the State District Court of Nevada (for the
shareholder derivative actions).
About Workhorse Group Inc.
Workhorse is a technology company focused on providing
drone-integrated electric vehicles to the last-mile delivery
sector. As an American original equipment manufacturer, we design
and build high-performance, battery-electric vehicles including
trucks and aircraft. Workhorse also develops cloud-based, real-time
telematics performance monitoring systems that are fully integrated
with our vehicles and enable fleet operators to optimize energy and
route efficiency. All Workhorse vehicles are designed to make the
movement of people and goods more efficient and less harmful to the
environment. For additional information visit workhorse.com.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements reflecting
our current expectations that involve risks and uncertainties.
These statements are made under the "safe harbor" provisions of the
U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. When used in
this document, the words "anticipate," "expect," "plan," "believe,"
"seek," "estimate," "will," and "continue" and similar expressions
are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These
statements involve substantial risks and uncertainties, including,
among others, risks and uncertainties associated with negotiating
final terms of the stipulations of settlement, obtaining court
approval of the proposed settlements, the number of purported class
members who may opt out of the proposed class action settlement,
any fee award to plaintiffs' counsel in connection with the
derivative case settlement, the effectiveness of releases, and
whether any proposed settlement is opposed and/or appealed. There
can be no assurance that the litigation will be finally resolved in
accordance with the term sheets or at all. For a further
description of the risks and uncertainties relating to the business
of the Company in general, see the Company’s filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, and
Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31,
2022, and June 30, 2022. Forward-looking statements speak only as
of the date hereof. We expressly disclaim any obligation or
undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any
forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect any change
in our expectations with regard thereto or any change in events,
conditions, or circumstances on which any such statement is based,
except as required by law.
Media Contact:
Aaron Palash / Greg Klassen
Joele Frank, Wilkinson Brimmer Katcher
212-355-4449
Investor Relations Contact:
Matt Glover and Tom Colton
Gateway Investor Relations
949-574-3860
WKHS@gatewayir.com [GN]
XTREME MANUFACTURING: Settlement in Gonzalez Gets Initial Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUDY GONZALEZ, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v.XTREME
MANUFACTURING, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01704-JLT-SKO (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Thurston entered an order granting
the plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class
settlement:
1. the class is defined as follows:
"All current and former non-exempt California employees of
Xtreme who worked at least one shift from December 4, 2016
to March 1, 2022.
2. Preliminary approval of the PAGA payment is granted.
3. The proposed notice plan and deadlines are approved.
4. Rudy Gonzalez is appointed the Class Representative for
the Settlement Class.
5. The firm of Mayall Hurley P.C.is appointed as Class
Counsel.
6. Simpluris, Inc. is appointed as the Settlement
Administrator, with responsibilities pursuant to the terms
set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
7. The Class Representative incentive award for Plaintiff is
granted preliminarily up to the amount of $5,000, subject
to a petition and review at the Final Approval and
Fairness Hearing.
8. Class Members and their counsel may support or oppose this
request, if they so desire, at the Final Approval and
Fairness Hearing.
9. Class Counsel's request for fees not to exceed 33 1/3% of
the gross settlement amount and costs to be determined is
granted preliminarily, subject to review of counsel's
petition for fees and costs at the Final Approval and
Fairness Hearing.
10. The petition for attorneys' fees and for class
representative enhancement fee shall be filed no later
than February 10, 2023.
11. Costs of settlement administration shall not exceed
$5,500.
12. The proposed Notice Packet is preliminarily approved, and
the parties shall file a finalized Notice with the
required revisions for the Court's approval within seven
days of the date of service of this Order.
13. The Settlement Administrator shall mail the approved Class
Notice Packet no later than December 5, 2022.
The Court finds the proposed class settlement is fair, adequate,
and reasonable. The factors set forth under Rule 23 and Ninth
Circuit precedent weigh in favor of preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement.
Rudy Gonzalez asserts Xtreme failed to comply with California's
wage and hour laws as provided in the California Labor Code, Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Business and Professions Code.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t2937t at no extra charge.[CC]
YANFENG US: Class Settlement in Dover Suit Wins Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON DOVER, et al., v.
YANFENG US AUTOMOTIVE INTERIOR SYSTEMS, LLC, et al.,, Case No.
2:20-cv-11643-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Terrence G. Berg
entered an amended order regarding plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement as follows:
-- Class Members
For settlement purposes only, the class is defined as:
"All participants and beneficiaries of the Yanfeng
Automotive Interior Systems and Investment 401(k) Plan
from January 1, 2018 through October 13, 2022, the date of
the original order granting preliminarily approval.
-- Class Representatives and Class Counsel
For settlement purposes only, Jason Dover, Eric Simpson,
and Steven Leggett are preliminarily certified as Class
Representatives.
Edelson Lechtzin LLP and Fink Bressack LLP are appointed
as Class Counsel.
-- Conditional Class Certification
For settlement purposes only, the Court preliminarily finds
that this lawsuit satisfies the requirements for class action
treatment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1), namely:
The Plaintiffs sued the Defendants for alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties related to the of the Yanfeng Automotive Interior
Systems Savings and Investment 401(k) Plan in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The parties have presented for the Court's approval a Settlement
Agreement concerning the claims remaining in this case. The Court,
having reviewed the Agreement and heard the parties' presentations,
now enters these findings and conclusions:
Yanfeng is supplier of instrument panels and cockpit systems, door
panels, floor consoles and overhead consoles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DDE8U5 at no extra charge.[CC]
YSA ARM LLC: Lombardi Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against YSA ARM LLC. The case
is styled as Diana Lombardi, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. YSA ARM LLC doing business as: Oxygen
XL, Case No. 7:22-cv-09294 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
YSA ARM LLC doing business as Oxygen XL -- https://oxygenxl.com/ --
is a debt collection agency in Spring Valley, New York.[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
YUSEN LOGISTICS: Metcalf Allowed Leave to Amend Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Joseph Metcalf v.
Yusen Logistics (Americas), Inc., et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-05912-GW-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George H. Wu
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend
but only to the extent discussed at the October 13, 2022 hearing.
Additionally, it would grant the Plaintiff's request to extend the
class certification deadlines by 60 days.
Yusen Logistics is a leading global provider of International
Freight Forwarding, Contract Logistics, and Supply Chain Solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3h4OaWv at no extra charge.[CC]
ZIGNEGO CO: Scheduling Order Entered in Cardenas Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARISON CARDENAS, v.
ZIGNEGO CO., INC., Case No. 22-cv-961-pp (E.D. Wis.), the Hon.
Judge Pamela Pepper entered an scheduling order as follows:
-- The parties shall exchange their December 2, 2022
Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures by the
end of the day on:
-- The Parties wishing to amend December 2, 2022
pleadings or join parties
without leave of the court
shall do so no later than the
end of the day on:
-- The plaintiff's motion for April 28, 2023
conditional certification for
claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) shall be
filed by the end of the day on:
-- The plaintiff's motion for Rule October 31, 2023
23 class certification and the
defendant's motion to decertify
any conditionally certified FLSA
class shall be filed by the end
of the day on:
-- The plaintiff shall disclose the October 31, 2023
identities of expert witnesses
along with reports and supporting
documentation, no later than the
end of the day on:
-- The defendant shall disclose January 5, 2024
the identities of expert
witnesses, along with reports
and supporting documentation,
no later than the end of the
day on:
-- The parties shall complete all March 29, 2024
discovery no later than the
end of the day on:
-- A party wishing to file April 30, 2024
dispositive motions must do
so by the end of the day on:
-- The parties shall file a joint April 30, 2024
status report by:
The court strongly encourages parties to begin considering
settlement early in the case. There are five magistrate judges in
the Eastern District -- three active and two recalled -- all of
whom are experienced mediators and who are willing and able to
conduct a mediation via videoconference.
Zignego is a road construction company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t4kZWr at no extra charge.[CC]
ZORBX INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ZorbX, Inc. The case
is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ZorbX, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09332-RA
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Zorbx -- https://zorbx.com/ -- is an unscented, non-toxic, and
biodegradable odor eliminator strong enough to tackle skunk and
gasoline but is safe for people, pets and plants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
ZUCKER'S BAGELS: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zucker's Bagels Grand
Central, LLC. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Zucker's Bagels Grand
Central, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06620 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Zucker's Bagels Grand Central -- https://www.zuckersbagels.com/ --
is a bagel shop, a snug stop for hand-rolled bagels with smoked
fish & cream cheese toppings, plus coffee & sandwiches.[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
*********
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 ***