/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221122.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, November 22, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 227
Headlines
7-ELEVEN INC: Patel Bid for Separate Final Judgment Tossed
ALL HOURS: Adler Wins Class Status Bid
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit for Deceptive Ways to Keep Prime Members
AMAZON.COM INC: Mbadiwe Files Suit in S.D. New York
AMAZON.COM INC: Nicholas Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Lites Seeks to Certify Amazon COBRA Class
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Roksandic Alleges
AMERICAN PACIFIC: Faces Suit for Alleged Labor Code Violations
APPLE INC: Faces Suit From Users for Alleged Privacy Invasion
ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Marshall Files Suit in W.D. Tennessee
ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Accrues $4.1MM for Membrives Suit Settlement
ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Discovery Continuing in Workers' Suit in Cal.
ASSESSOR OF GREAT NECK: Ganguli Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
AUNT JAKE'S: Cuaya Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Held Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
B&G FOODS INC: Indiviglio Files Suit in S.D. New York
BANK OF AMERICA: Nelson Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
BANK OF AMERICA: Philadelphia Seeks to Certify Class, Sub-Class
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Krieger Sues Over Inflated Crop Inputs' Prices
BIOSTRAP USA: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BIRD ROAD BAKERY: Perez Sues Over Overtime Violation & Retaliation
BIRD ROAD BAKERY: Perez Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
BLUE CROSS: Judge Certifies Suit Over Discriminatory Conduct
BROOKLYN HAIR CORP: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BSONYC CORP: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BUMBLE AND BUMBLE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BXNG CLUB SOLANA: Zaskey Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Young Files Suit in W.D. Louisiana
CANADIAN HOCKEY: Carcillo Moves to Certify Systemic Abuse Suit
CAPITAL ONE N.A.: Meehan Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
CASH EXPRESS: Collins Sues Over Failure to Secure Consumers' Info
CENTER FOR SCIENCE: Henderson Suit Transferred to W.D. Michigan
CENTRO DE SALUD: Kabitzke Suit Removed to S.D. California
CHOCMOD USA INC: James Sues Over False and Deceptive Practices
CHOICE HEALTH INSURANCE: Boykin Files Suit in D. South Carolina
CLEVELAND AVE: Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadlines OK'd in Hogan
COGNIZANT TECH: Palmer Bid for Class Certification Partly Granted
COLLECTION SITES: Montejano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
COMPASS MINERALS: Faces Securities Class Suit From Shareholders
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Granados Sues Over Data Breach
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Lamons Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
CRICKET WIRELESS: Gibson Files Disability Discrimination Suit
CROWN BRIDGE: DarkPulse Files RICO Suit in S.D. New York
DAI ENTERPRISES: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DARCARS OF RAILROAD: Gaska Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
DELTA AIR LINES: Emmett Sues Over Wiretapping Communications
DENNIS REAGLE: Byrd Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: Judge Tosses Suit Over Biometrics Law Violations
DON ROBERTO: Velazquez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Jackson Says
EAGLE FAMILY FOODS: Gibson Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling
EBAY INC: George Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Calls
EFFICIENT FAST: Rodriguez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage
EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Due for Lead Plaintiff Naming on Jan. 3
EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Schoen Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
ENTREPRISES VIVRE: Violates Consumer Protection Law, Suit Claims
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALTIES: Tarley Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
EUPHORIC HOME: Johnston Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid OT
EXCLUSIVE WIRELESS: Whitten Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
FACET WEALTH INC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL: D.C. Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
FCA US: Hunter Sues Over Defective Electronic Sway Bar
FLOSPORTS INC: Hill Files Suit in W.D. New York
FLYING DOG BREWERY: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FOOD52 INC: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FOX CORPORATION: EWPF Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
FREEDOM FIRST: Urrea Sues Over Illegal Overdraft Fee Collection
GANNETT CO: Illegally Discloses Subscribers' Data to Facebook
GENERAC POWER: Haak Sues Over Defective SnapRS 801 Switches
GEORGIA-PACIFIC WOOD: Briefing Schedules Extended in Harris Suit
GILEAD SCIENCES: EPPs Seek Approval of Notice Plan Distribution
GILEAD SCIENCES: KPH Seeks Approval of Class Cert. Notice Plan
GLOBAL EQUITY: Dowell Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
GODIVA INC: Post-Settlement Claims Audits, Challenges Discussed
GOLD COAST FEED: Arostica Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
GREEN ACRES NURSERY: Vega-Felix Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
H&M HENNES: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Business Practices
HARD ROCK CAFE: DiBenedetto Sues Over Misleading Business Acts
HARRIS GROUP: Misclassifies Security Officers, Hankins Suit Says
HD SUPPLY MANAGEMENT: Santiago Sues Over Untimely Payments
HEALTH ENROLLMENT: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Dec. 19
HEAVENLY CIRCLE: McCoy Sues Over Home Health Aide's Unpaid OT
HOME PARTNERS: Richmond Sues Over Unlawful Burden-Shifting
HONOR HOME CARE: Kosnikowski Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HOSPITALS CORPORATION: Sumpter Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ILLINOIS MUTUAL LIFE: Lowenberg Files Suit in N.D. California
ISORAY INC: Franchi Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
J & J SNACK FOODS: Vargas Sues to Recover Unpaid, Overtime Wages
J.G. WENTWORTH: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
J.M. SMUCKER: Humphrey Sues Over Misleading Label in Pet Food
JEFF & TAMMY: Fair Sues Over failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages
JORNS AND ASSOCIATES: Prairie Pointe Files TCPA Suit in D. Kansas
JUDSON ENTERPRISES: Carpenter Files TCPA Suit in D. Minnesota
KANDLE DINING SERVICES: Bodi Files FLSA Suit in D. Colorado
KEVIN STITT: James Files Suit in D. Oklahoma
KEYBANK NATIONAL: Martin Sues Over Failure to Protect PII
KIA AMERICA: Henry Files Suit in C.D. California
KIA AMERICA: McQuarrie Files Suit in C.D. California
KIMCO FACILITY: Holybee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
KIND LLC: Faces Guerra Suit Over Deceptive Snack Food Labels
KSF ACQUISITION: McCracken Sues Over Deceptive Advertising
LANDMARK RECOVERY: Hale Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LEXINGTON COUNTY HEALTH: Luce Files Suit in D. South Carolina
LINCARE INC: B.B. Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
LIVING ROOM RESTAURANT: Inoa-Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Wages
LSL INDUSTRIES: Citizens Insurance Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
MASKCARA INDUSTRIES: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MASSACHUSETTS: Union Sues Over Canceled Civil Service Exams
MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Kelly Suit Transferred to C.D. California
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. 7-Eleven
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. BKS Inc
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Broadway
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Broadway
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Broken Ground
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Camp Grounds
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. CenturyLink
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Cetta Inc.
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Connecticut
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Dunhill
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. E-Z Mart
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Fairmont
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. GES Bakery
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. GrubHub
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Harris
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Hertz Corp
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Hy-Vee, Inc.
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Hyman
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Jax Dux
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Jetro Holding
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. JGSA, Inc.
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Lanning
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. LDC, Inc.
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. MTA
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. NGA Suit
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. NuCity
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Old Jericho
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Pizzabov
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Publix
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. QVC Inc.
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Rite Aid
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Rookies Inc.
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Seaway Gas
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Spoke
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Supervalu
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Tabu Salon
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Wakefern
MEDICAL REVENUE SERVICE: Bergida Files FDCPA Suit in D. Nevada
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Jamil Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: M274 Engine Problems Cause Class Action Lawsuit
MESIROW FINANCIAL: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MODELEZ GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Chewing Gums
MONTEFIORE HEALTH: Does Not Properly Pay Cleaners, Guerrero Says
NEW YORK, NY: Seeks More Time to Produce Responsive Docs & Info
NEW YORK: Court OKs Letter Motion to Seal in Flores Suit
NFL ENTERPRISES: Illegally Tracks Users' Activity, Alex Says
NFL: Plaintiffs in Antitrust Suit Allowed to File Docs Under Seal
NISSAN NORTH: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Timing Chains
OAKBEND MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Higgs Claims
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Bid Tossed as Moot w/o Prejudice
OMNI HOTELS: Joint Bid for Continuation of Briefing Sched Filed
RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Bid to Dismiss Takata/Klapper Suit Pending
RIZ BAGELS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jimenez Suit Alleges
SEKO WORLDWIDE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Joefield Alleges
SOLAR EDGE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 3, 2023
SOLARWINDS CORP: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Filed by Shareholders
SONY CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Missing Serial Numbers
SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: Calif. Retailers Sue Over Pricing Discrimination
TUSIMPLE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 9, 2023
UNISYS CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 10, 2023
UNITED STATES: Judge Rejects Biden's LGBT Healthcare Protection
V MANUFACTURING: Basulto Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
VGW MALTA: Agrees to Settle Gambling Class Suit for $11.75-Mil.
VHS OF MICHIGAN: Hermiz Sues Over Illegal Collection Practices
VIRGINIA: Faces Suit Over Mismanaged Special Education Program
VOYAGER DIGITAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 10
*********
7-ELEVEN INC: Patel Bid for Separate Final Judgment Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dhananjay Patel, et al.,
v. 7-Eleven, Inc., et al. Case No. 1:17-cv-11414-NMG (D. Mass.),
the Hon. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for separate and final
judgment and for a stay of 7-Eleven's counterclaims
and third-party claims;
2. directing the Defendant to file its memorandum in support
of its motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims
on or before Friday, November 18, 2022.
3. directing the Plaintiffs to file their memorandum in
opposition on or before Friday, December 9, 2022.
This putative class action centers around allegations that 7-Eleven
misclassified its franchisees as independent contractors in
violation of the Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law.
Local 7-Eleven franchise store owners and operators, Dhananjay
Patel, Safdar Hussain, Vatsal Chokshi, Dhaval Patel and Niral Patel
brought this putative class action on behalf of themselves and a
class of similarly situated individuals in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
In September, 2022, this Court entered summary judgment in favor of
7-Eleven on plaintiffs' claim that it misclassified them as
independent contractors.
7-Eleven is a multinational chain of retail convenience stores,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GesD8yat no extra charge.[CC]
ALL HOURS: Adler Wins Class Status Bid
--------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL ADLER, individually
and on behalf of All others similarly situated, v. ALL HOURS
PLUMBING DRAIN CLEANING 24-7-365 LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00141-DBP
(D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered an order
granting the motion for class certification as follows:
The Court certifies and defines the following class:
"All persons in the United States who were sent the following
prerecorded message on their cellular phone from All Hours
Plumbing Drain Cleaning 24-7-365, LLC on or about February
22, 2021:
"Hi, Steve here with All Hours Plumbing Heating and Air.
With the changing temperatures, have you found yourself
being a thermostat disc jockey with no audience? We wanna
stop playing twist and shout with the thermostat and help
you make that tax refund that you may have received last
for years by investing in your biggest purchase: your
home. Now is perfect time to update your home's furnace
and air conditioning. This week only we have a special
offer for our premium clients. The first 50 furnace and AC
combo installations scheduled and completed will receive a
PlayStation 5. So call us today to learn more and book
your appointment today at 801-997-9591. That's 801-997-
9591, and you have an awesome, great day."
The court appoints Ignacio J. Hiraldo and Manuel S. Hiraldo
as class counsel and Plaintiff Jill Adler is appointed as the
class representative.
The Plaintiff's previously filed motion for summary judgment
is denied without prejudice.
The Court said,"The Plaintiff satisfies the requirements under Rule
23 and is entitled to certification of her proposed class."
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hFHUVo at no extra charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit for Deceptive Ways to Keep Prime Members
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett wrote through Top Class Actions.com that Amazon.com
intentionally makes it hard to cancel Amazon Prime memberships, a
new class action lawsuit alleges.
Amazon Prime cancellation class action lawsuit overview:
Who: Thomas Dorobiala filed a class action lawsuit against
Amazon.com Inc.
Why: Dorobiala claims Amazon makes it intentionally difficult to
cancel Amazon Prime memberships.
Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Washington federal
court.
Plaintiff Thomas Dorobiala claims Amazon "engaged in willfully
deceptive practices to keep its Prime members locked into their
memberships."
He argues Amazon implemented a secret project known as "Project
Iliad" that attempts to "thwart Prime membership cancellations."
In an attempt to make it harder to cancel Amazon Prime memberships,
the company added "multiple layers of questions and new offers"
that customers must sift through before a Prime member can cancel,
the Amazon class action alleges.
"After launching Project Iliad, Amazon managed to reduce the number
of Prime cancellations by 14% at one point in 2017 as fewer members
managed to reach the final cancellation page," the lawsuit states.
Amazon does not want its Amazon Prime members to cancel their
subscriptions since they "spend more than twice as much as other
Amazon customers" and "having so many Prime members also increases
Amazon's share of online retail commerce," the Amazon class action
alleges.
Dorobiala wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers
enrolled in Amazon Prime who attempted to cancel their memberships
on or after Nov. 9, 2018, and incurred a membership fee after
failing to do so.
He accuses Amazon of violating the Washington Consumer Protection
Act, demands a jury trial, and requests an award of actual and
treble damages for himself and all class members.
In related Amazon news, a consumer filed a separate class action
lawsuit against the company in June, arguing it should have
decreased the price of its Amazon Prime membership after it
discontinued its free Whole Foods delivery benefit.
The plaintiff is represented by Steve Berman and Barbara Mahoney of
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.
The Amazon Prime cancellation class action lawsuit is Dorobiala v.
Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01600, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington. [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Mbadiwe Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazon.Com, Inc. The
case is styled as Tafari Mbadiwe, Rachel Miller, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Amazon.Com, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-09542-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Amazon.com, Inc. -- http://www.amazon.com/-- is an American
multinational technology company that focuses on e-commerce, cloud
computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Zachary Goldman, Esq.
BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL WILLIAMS LLP
903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350
San Clemente, CA 92673
Phone: (973) 476-5485
Email: dgoldman@bklwlaw.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Nicholas Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alexandria Nicholas, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Amazon.Com, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05225-SLE was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for
Western District of Washington on Nov. 8, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01616-TL to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Dispute.
Amazon.com, Inc. -- http://www.amazon.com/-- is an American
multinational technology company that focuses on e-commerce, cloud
computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN]
The Plaintiffs is represented by:
David Louis Gerbie, Esq.
Joseph Dunklin, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker, 9th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 893-7002
Email: dgerbie@mcgpc.com
jdunklin@mcgpc.com
- and -
Myles P. McGuire, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 N LASALLE ST, 14TH FL
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: (312) 589-6370
Email: mmcguire@kamberedelson.com
- and -
Rebecca Anne Peterson, Esq.
Robert Kinney Shelquist, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (619) 525-3990
Email: rapeterson@locklaw.com
rkshelquist@locklaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Elizabeth Brooke Herrington, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
110 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 324-1000
Email: beth.herrington@morganlewis.com
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Lites Seeks to Certify Amazon COBRA Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERESA LITES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM
SERVICES, LLC., Case No. 1:22-cv-20587-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying this case as
a class action for the "Amazon COBRA class" consisting of similarly
situated individuals and defined as:
"All participants and beneficiaries in Amazon.com Services,
LLC's Health, Dental or Vision Plan to who Amazon.com
Services, LLC provided a COBRA Notice, during the applicable
statute of limitations period, as a result of a qualifying
event as determined by Amazon.com Services, LLC's records,
who did not elect COBRA continuation coverage."
The putative class meets the requirements for certification
pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1)(A)-(B) and 23(b)(3), the
Plaintiff says,
The Plaintiff was employed by Amazon from 2014 to January 2019.
While employed, Plaintiff, she and her five children participated
in Amazon's health, dental, and vision plans.
The Plaintiff's termination in January 2019 was a "qualifying
event" requiring Amazon to notify Plaintiff (and her dependents) of
their COBRA continuation rights. On or about January 23, 2019, WTW,
on Amazon's behalf, mailed Plaintiff and her dependents Amazon's
COBRA notice packet.
The Plaintiff found the COBRA notice to be long and confusing. The
Plaintiff did not elect COBRA because she was unwilling to certify
to something she didn't understand and did not wish to be held
liable for making a mistake on her application.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 27,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3O2uxuyat
no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N. Franklin Street, #700
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com
Counsel for Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC, are:
Richard C. McCrea, Jr., Esq.
Edward J. Meehan, Esq.
Mark C. Nielsen, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
101 E. Kennedy Boulevard Ste. 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
E-mail: mccrear@gtlaw.com
emeehan@groom.com
mnielsen@groom.com
- and -
Paul J. Rinefierd, Esq.
GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED
1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, D.C. 20006
E-mail: prinefierd@groom.com
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Roksandic Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE ROKSANDIC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.; and DOES
1 THROUGH 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-08177 (C.D.
Cal., Nov. 8, 2022) is an action against the Defendants for failure
to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit
meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.
Plaintiff Roksandic was employed by the Defendants as customer
service agent.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. offers airline services. The Company
provides scheduled air transportation services for passengers and
cargo
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leah M. Beligan, Esq.
BELIGAN LAW GROUP, LLP
19800 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 300
Newport Beach, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 224-3881
Email: lmbeligan@bbclawyers.net
-and-
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
FRADIN LAW, LLC
8401 Crawford Ave., Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Email: mike@fradinlaw.com
AMERICAN PACIFIC: Faces Suit for Alleged Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo!.com covered the news that the Sacramento employment law
attorneys, at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a
class action complaint alleging that American Pacific Mortgage
Corporation violated the California Labor Code. The American
Pacific Mortgage Corporation class action lawsuit, Case No.
S-CV-0049369 is currently pending in the Placer County Superior
Court of the State of California.
A copy of the Complaint can be read here:
https://bamlawca.app.box.com/s/g3ux05y5e9oyfmfu7f0l1uhl87wi3s38
According to the class action complaint, the company's non-exempt
employees were also allegedly unable to take off-duty meal breaks
due to their rigorous work schedules. California labor laws require
an employer to provide an employee required to perform work for
more than five (5) hours during a shift with, a thirty (30) minute
uninterrupted meal break prior to the end of the employee's fifth
(5th) hour of work and a second uninterrupted meal break when
employees are required to work ten (10) hours. The Complaint claims
that the company did not provide their employees who forfeited meal
breaks additional compensation.
The Complaint further alleges American Pacific Mortgage Corporation
failed to pay employees their accurate sick pay wages, which
violates California Labor Code Section 246. Employees routinely
earned non-discretionary incentive wages which increased their
regular rate of pay. However, when paid sick pay wages, it was
allegedly paid at the base rate of pay rather than the higher
regular rate of pay.
For more information about the class action lawsuit against
American Pacific Mortgage Corporation, call (800) 568-8020 to speak
to an experienced California employment attorney today.
Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is an employment law
firm with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento,
Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. If you need help in
collecting unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions, being
wrongfully terminated from work, and other employment law claims,
contact one of their attorneys today.[BN]
APPLE INC: Faces Suit From Users for Alleged Privacy Invasion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg Law.com published that Apple Inc. records users' private
activity on mobile applications without their consent and despite
its privacy assurances in violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act, a new proposed federal class action alleged.
Elliot Libman alleged in the lawsuit that Apple has assured users
that they are in control of what information they share when they
use mobile apps, but that those assurances are "utterly false."
"Privacy is one of the main issues that Apple uses to set its
products apart from competitors," the lawsuit filed Thursday said.
"But Apple's privacy guarantees are completely illusory."
Apple's iPhones and other devices contain settings that purport to
disable all tracking and sharing of app information, but the tech
giant continues to collect, track, and monetize their data even
after consumers have chosen to disable sharing, it said.
Apple's "App Store" app provides an example of how the company
collects user data: the app records every action users take, what
they tapped on, which apps they searched for, what ads they saw,
and how long they looked at a given app, the lawsuit alleged.
Most apps that send analytics data to Apple share consistent ID
numbers, which allows Apple to track user activity across its
services, it said.
"Through its pervasive and unlawful data tracking and collection
business, Apple knows even the most intimate and potentially
embarrassing aspects of the user's app usage -- regardless of
whether the user accepts Apple's illusory offer to keep such
activities private," the lawsuit said.
Causes of Action: unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy,
violations of CIPA.
Relief: Class certification, injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, restitution,
attorney's fees and costs.
Potential Class Size: hundreds of thousands of members, according
to the complaint.
Response: Apple didn't respond immediately to an emailed request
for comment.
Attorneys: Bursor & Fisher PA represents Libman and the proposed
class.
The case is Libman v. Apple, N.D. Cal., No. 5:22-cv-07069,
complaint filed 11/10/22.
To contact the reporter on this story: Christopher Brown in St.
Louis at ChrisBrown@bloomberglaw.com
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Rob Tricchinelli
at rtricchinelli@bloomberglaw.com; Carmen Castro-Pagan at
ccastro-pagan@bloomberglaw.com[GN]
ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Marshall Files Suit in W.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARC Automotive, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Rittie Marshall, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated individuals v. ARC
Automotive, Inc., Autoliv ASP, Inc., AUTOLIV, INCL General Motors,
LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02637-TLP-atc (W.D. Tenn., Sept. 20, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability for Motor
Vehicle Product Liability.
ARC Automotive, Inc. -- http://www.arcautomotive.com/-- is a
global manufacturer that produces a full complement of inflators
for automotive airbag applications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Murray B. Wells, Esq.
WELLS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
81 Monroe Avenue, Ste. 400
Memphis, TN 38103
Phone: (901) 507-2521
Fax: (901) 507-1791
Email: wells@thewellsfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jessalyn H. Zeigler, Esq.
BASS BERRY & SIMS PLC
315 Deaderick Street, Ste. 2700
Nashville, TN 37238-0002
Phone: (615) 742-6200
Email: jzeigler@bassberry.com
ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Accrues $4.1MM for Membrives Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashford Hospitality Trust, 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 as of
September 30, 2022, the company has paid $100,000 and accrued
approximately $4.1 million in settlement of the case captioned
Pedro Membrives and Michele Spero, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. HHC TRS FP Portfolio LLC, Remington
Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, Remington Holdings LLC, Remington Long
Island Employers, LLC, et al., Index No. 607828/2015 (Sup. Ct.
Nassau Cty.).
On December 4, 2015, Pedro Membrives filed a class action lawsuit
against HHC TRS FP Portfolio LLC, Remington Lodging & Hospitality,
LLC, Remington Holdings LLC, Mark A. Sharkey, Archie Bennett, Jr.,
Monty J. Bennett, Christopher Peckham, and any other related
entities in the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County,
Commercial Division.
On August 30, 2016, the complaint was amended to add Michele Spero
as a Plaintiff and Remington Long Island Employers, LLC as a
defendant. The lawsuit is captioned Pedro Membrives and Michele
Spero, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
HHC TRS FP Portfolio LLC, Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC,
Remington Holdings LLC, Remington Long Island Employers, LLC, et
al., Index No. 607828/2015 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cty.).
The plaintiffs allege that the owner and management company of the
Hyatt Regency Long Island hotel violated New York law by improperly
retaining service charges rather than distributing them to
employees.
In 2017, the class was certified. On July 24, 2018, the trial court
granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability.
The defendants appealed the summary judgment to the New York State
Appellate Division, Second Department (the "Second Department").
The Second Department heard oral arguments in this matter on April
20, 2021, and on July 14, 2021, affirmed in part, and modified in
part, the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs.
Due to the Second Department's holding, all information produced
during discovery, and the continuing cost and risk, to both sides,
a settlement was reached, signed by the parties and approved by the
Court in June 2022.
The settlement requires the Company to establish a settlement fund
that will be used to pay plaintiffs that opt in by November 10,
2022 and are entitled to receive payment, and to fund
administrative expenses. The Company previously recorded an accrual
of approximately $4.2 million.
As of September 30, 2022, the Company has paid $100,000 and the
accrual is approximately $4.1 million.
Ashford Hospitality Trust is a real estate investment trust (REIT)
focused on investing predominantly in upper upscale, full-service
hotels. The company is based in Dallas, Texas.
ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Discovery Continuing in Workers' Suit in Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashford Hospitality Trust, 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
discovery is continuing in the class action lawsuit filed against
one of the Company's hotel management companies in the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of Contra
Costa.
On December 20, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against one
of the Company's hotel management companies in the Superior Court
of the State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa
alleging violations of certain California employment laws, which
class action affects nine hotels owned by subsidiaries of the
Company.
The court has entered an order granting class certification with
respect to: (1) a statewide class of non-exempt employees of its
manager who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of
its manager's previous written policy requiring its employees to
stay on premises during rest breaks; and (2) a derivative class of
non-exempt former employees of the Company's manager who were not
paid for allegedly missed breaks upon separation from employment.
Notices to potential class members were sent out on February 2,
2021.
Potential class members had until April 4, 2021 to opt out of the
class, however, the total number of employees in the class has not
been definitively determined and is the subject of continuing
discovery. The opt out period has been extended until such time
that discovery has concluded.
While the Company believes it is reasonably possible that the
Company may incur a loss associated with this litigation, because
there remains uncertainty under California law with respect to a
significant legal issue, discovery relating to class members
continues, and the trial judge retains discretion to award lower
penalties than set forth in the applicable California employment
laws, the Company does not believe that any potential loss to the
Company is reasonably estimable at this time.
As of September 30, 2022, no amounts have been accrued.
Ashford Hospitality Trust is a real estate investment trust (REIT)
focused on investing predominantly in upper upscale, full-service
hotels. The company is based in Dallas, Texas.
ASSESSOR OF GREAT NECK: Ganguli Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Village of Great Neck, et al. The case is styled as Niladri
Ganguli, Anulekha Ganguli, all other similarly situated Petitioners
on the annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioners v. The Assessor of the
Village of Great Neck, The Board of Assessment Review of the
Village of Great Neck, Respondents, Case No. 615639/2022 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Nassau Cty., Nov. 7, 2022).
The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."
Great Neck -- https://www.greatneckvillage.org/ -- is a region on
Long Island, New York, that covers a peninsula on the North Shore
and includes nine villages.[BN]
The Petitioners are represented by:
MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP
132 Spruce St
Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915
AUNT JAKE'S: Cuaya Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN CUAYA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AUNT JAKE'S (D/B/A AUNT JAKE'S), AUNT JAKE'S
LLC (D/B/A AUNT JAKE'S), and NICHOLAS A BOCCIO, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-09236 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the
New York Labor Law and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage
orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff Cuaya was employed by Defendants as food runner and food
expediter at Aunt Jake's restaurant from approximately February
2021 until April 15, 2022.
The Defendants own, operate, or control two Italian restaurants in
New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Held Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as William Held, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Auto-Owners (Mutual) Insurance
Company, Case No. 22AC-AC00424-01, was removed from the Circuit
Court of Cole County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on Nov. 4, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04162-WJE to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
Auto-Owners Insurance -- https://www.auto-owners.com/ -- is among
the top insurance providers in the U.S., offering a wide variety of
discounts and coverages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher E Roberts, Esq.
David T. Butsch, Esq.
BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
231 S. Bemiston, Suite 260
Clayton, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 863-5700
Email: croberts@butschroberts.com
butsch@butschroberts.com
- and -
Douglas Winters, Esq.
190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 1100
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 499-5200
Email: dwinters@winterslg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Alexander Barrett, Esq.
STINSON LLP - JC
230 W. McCarty Street
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Phone: (573) 556-3601
Fax: (573) 556-3637
Email: alexander.barrett@stinson.com
B&G FOODS INC: Indiviglio Files Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against B&G Foods, Inc. The
case is styled as Deena Indiviglio, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. B&G Foods, Inc., Case No.
7:22-cv-09545-VB (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
B&G Foods -- https://bgfoods.com/ -- is an American branded foods
holding company based in Parsippany, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road, Ste. 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Nelson Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gary Nelson, Kayleigh Potter, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bank of America,
National Association, Case No. 220902864, was removed from the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 4, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04440-JS to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
The Bank of America -- https://www.bankofamerica.com/ -- is an
American multinational investment bank and financial services
holding company headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate
Center in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
Jody T. Lopez-Jacobs, Esq.
FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
450 N. Narberth Ave, Suite 101
Narberth, PA 19072
Phone: (610) 822-0782
Fax: (610) 667-0552
Email: cflitter@consumerslaw.com
amilz@consumerslaw.com
jlopez-jacobs@consumerslaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kristopher Issac Devyver, Esq.
MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 667-6000
Email: kdevyver@mcguirewoods.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Philadelphia Seeks to Certify Class, Sub-Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,
et al. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01608-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:
1. certifying a Class and Sub-Class pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3); and
2. appointing Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP,
Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch LLP, and Susman Godfrey LLP as
Co-lead Class and Sub-Class Counsel.
The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services holding company
headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 27,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Gd7n2Rat
no extra charge.[CC]
Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel are:
Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
Sami H. Rashid, Esq.
Thomas Lepri, Esq.
Jeremy D. Andersen, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 849-7000
Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
samirashid@quinnemanuel.com
thomaslepri@quinnemanuel.com
jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
David H. Wollmuth, Esq.
William A. Maher, Esq.
Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq.
Randall R. Rainer, Esq.
WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP
500 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10100
Telephone: (212) 382-3300
E-mail: dwollmuth@wmd-law.com
wmaher@wmd-law.com
raranoff@wmd-law.com
rrainer@wmd-law.com
- and -
William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
Arun Subramanian, Esq.
Seth Ard, Esq.
Tamar Lusztig, Esq.
Elizabeth Aronson, Esq.
Katherine M. Peaslee, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Fl.
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 336-8330
Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com
sard@susmangodfrey.com
tlusztig@susmangodfrey.com
baronson@susmangodfrey.com
kpeaslee@susmangodfrey.com
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Krieger Sues Over Inflated Crop Inputs' Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK KRIEGER and KRIEGER FAMILY FARMS, LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BAYER
CROPSCIENCE LP; BAYER DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL CROPSCIENCE, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CARGILL
INCORPORATED; BASF CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CORPORATION; WINFIELD
SOLUTIONS, LLC; UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INC.; FEDERATED COOPERATIVES
LTD.; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC.; GROWMARK INC.; GROWMARK
FS, LLC; SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC.; AND TENKOZ, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00499-JRS-MG (S.D. Ind., Nov. 8, 2022) alleges
that Defendants have established a secretive distribution process
that keeps crop inputs prices inflated at supracompetitive levels.
According to the complaint, in furtherance of their conspiracy,
denies farmers access to relevant market information, including
transparent pricing terms that would allow comparison shopping and
better-informed purchasing decisions, and including information
about seed relabeling practices that would enable farmers to know
if they are buying newly developed seeds or identical seeds
repackaged under a new brand name and sold for a higher price.
Additionally, the Defendants conspired to boycott e-commerce Crop
Inputs sales platforms because of the threat they posed to
Defendants' market position, power and price control. For example,
the Manufacturer Defendants and Wholesaler Defendants agreed not to
sell to e-commerce Crop Inputs sales platforms and enforced strict
discipline on Retailer Defendants who failed to comply with the
boycott, the suit says.
As a result of Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, e-commerce Crop
Inputs sales platforms such as FBN were unable to purchase Crop
Inputs from the Defendants. This was a devastating blow to these
sales platforms and directly harmed farmers by eliminating a
lower-cost option for purchasing these Crop Inputs. The Defendants,
on the other hand, as the dominant manufacturers and sellers,
benefitted from the lack of lower-cost options for farmers on these
ecommerce platforms, the suit adds.
As a direct and proximate result of their anticompetitive conduct,
the Defendants have allegedly maintained supracompetitive prices
for Crop Inputs by denying farmers access to accurate pricing
information and have injured farmers by forcing farmers to accept
opaque price increases that drastically outweigh any increase in
crop yields or market prices.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover injunctive relief, treble damages,
and other relief as appropriate based on Defendants' violations of
federal and state antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer
protection laws, and unjust enrichment laws of the several States.
Bayer Cropscience is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bayer AG
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri and incorporated in New York
that develops, manufactures, and sells Crop Inputs in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles R. Watkins
GUIN, STOKES & EVANS, LLC
805 Lake Street #226
Oak Park, IL 60301
Telephone: (312) 878-8391
E-mail: charlesw@gseattorneys.com
- and –
David J. Guin
Tammy M. Stokes
GUIN, STOKES & EVANS, LLC
300 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd. N.
Title Building, Suite 600
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 226-2282
E-mail: davidg@gseattorneys.com
tammys@gseattorneys.com
BIOSTRAP USA: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Biostrap USA, LLC.
The case is styled as Jose Zarzuela, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Biostrap USA, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-09583 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Biostrap -- https://biostrap.com/ -- offers the first-of-its-kind
configurable biometric monitoring platform with cloud processing,
customizable professional and user interfaces, AI-driven insights,
and integration options.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 11201
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
BIRD ROAD BAKERY: Perez Sues Over Overtime Violation & Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Perez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. BIRD ROAD BAKERY, LLC, and CARLOS DEVARONA, VICKY BAKERY
KENDALL, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-23097-JEM (S.D. Fla., Oct. 14,
2022), is brought against the Defendants for overtime violations
and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and for workers'
compensation retaliation under the Act.
While employed by the Bird Road Employers, they scheduled Plaintiff
to work 60-84 hours per work week. As such, after the point that
the Bird Road Employers switched Plaintiff to a salary to
intentionally avoid their overtime obligations to Plaintiff, they
owe him $27.19 per hour for unpaid overtime for each hour worked
over forty per week x 2. The Bird Road Employers had a policy and
practice of placing its Hourly Employees on a set salary to
intentionally avoid having to pay them overtime resulting in
overtime wage violations for all such employees similar to
Plaintiff, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Bird Road Employer from 11/20 through
8/30/21, and for Vicky Bakery from 10/4/21 to 5/08/22.
Bird Road Bakery, LLC and Vicky Bakery Kendall, Inc., act as one
entity, transferring employees from one store to the other as if
they were one unit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Juliana Gonzalez, Esq.
Lawrence J. McGuinness, Esq.
MG LEGAL GROUP, P.A.
3126 Center Street
Coconut Grove, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 448-9557
Fax: (305) 448-9559
Email: juliana@ljmpalaw.com
office@mglegalgroup.com
ljm@ljmpalaw.com
scheduling_ljmpa@comcast.net
The Defendants are represented by:
Patrick J. Folley, Esq.
Rachel K. Beige, Esq.
COLE SCOTT & KISSSANE, P.A.
222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 120
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 383-9228
Fax: (561) 683-8977
Email: rachel.beige@csklegal.com
patrick.folley@csklegal.com
mayber.delgado@csklegal.com
BIRD ROAD BAKERY: Perez Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mario Perez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. BIRD ROAD BAKERY, LLC, VICKY BAKERY KENDALL,
INC, CARLOS DEVARONA, ANTONIO CAO, Case No. 2022014397CA01, was
removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida on Sept. 23, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-23097-JEM to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Bird Road Bakery is a local chain restaurant for Cuban specialties
with some items available around the clock.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Juliana Gonzalez, Esq.
Lawrence J. McGuinness, Esq.
MG LEGAL GROUP, P.A.
3126 Center Street
Coconut Grove, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 448-9557
Fax: (305) 448-9559
Email: juliana@ljmpalaw.com
office@mglegalgroup.com
ljm@ljmpalaw.com
scheduling_ljmpa@comcast.net
The Defendants are represented by:
Rachel K. Beige, Esq.
Patrick J. Folley, Esq.
COLE SCOTT & KISSSANE, P.A.
222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 120
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 383-9228
Fax: (561) 683-8977
Email: rachel.beige@csklegal.com
patrick.folley@csklegal.com
BLUE CROSS: Judge Certifies Suit Over Discriminatory Conduct
------------------------------------------------------------
Jakob Emerson said through Beckerspayer.com that a federal judge in
Washington state has granted a class action against Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Illinois that accuses the payer of denying
gender-affirming care coverage under a self-funded health plan,
thereby violating the anti-discrimination provision of the ACA.
In the Nov. 9 court decision, U.S. District Judge Robert Bryan
certified the class action to represent up to 1,740 people who are
covered under self-funded plans and who were or could still be
denied transgender care coverage.
The original lawsuit was filed in 2020 by a transgender teenager
and his mother, who were provided health coverage through her
employer under the Catholic Health Initiatives Medical Plan. The
plan was administered by BCBS and included a transgender care
exclusion clause. BCBS said 95 percent of the 398 self-funded plans
it administers include the same clause.
BCBS also argued that its activities as a third-party administrator
are not subject to the anti-discrimination provisions in Section
1557 of the ACA.
"Class members' individual medical services are not relevant to
this portion of their requested relief," the judge wrote. "The harm
alleged -- Blue Cross's alleged discriminatory conduct in the
processing of their claims -- is common to all the class members."
[GN]
BROOKLYN HAIR CORP: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooklyn Hair Corp.
The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Brooklyn Hair Corp., Case No.
1:22-cv-06866 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Brooklyn Hair -- https://brooklynhair.com/ -- provides 100% premium
human hair extension.[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
BSONYC CORP: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BSONYC Corp. The case
is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. BSONYC Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-06867
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
BSONYC Corp. doing business as Beauty of New York --
https://www.beautyofnewyork.com/ -- remi hair, lace front wig,
wigs, half wigs, braid hair, weaving hair, hair care, hair fashion
and more.[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
BUMBLE AND BUMBLE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bumble and Bumble,
LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Bumble and Bumble, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-06868 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bumble and Bumble -- https://www.bumbleandbumble.com/ -- is a hair
salon and product company established in 1977 by hairdresser and
entrepreneur Michael Gordon.[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
BXNG CLUB SOLANA: Zaskey Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The BXNG Club Solana
Beach LLC. The case is styled as Tayler Zaskey, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The BXNG Club Solana
Beach LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-02066-WWB-DCI (M.D. Fla., Nov. 8,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
The Boxing Club -- https://www.thebxngclub.com/ -- is a premier
fitness center offering classes, training & workout programs around
boxing & martial arts, yoga & more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Young Files Suit in W.D. Louisiana
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caesars Entertainment
Inc. The case is styled as Mike Young, individually & on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Caesars Entertainment Inc., Case
No. 5:22-cv-05331-DEW-MLH (W.D. La., Sept. 23, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Caesars Entertainment, Inc. -- https://www.caesars.com/corporate --
formerly Eldorado Resorts, Inc., is an American hotel and casino
entertainment company founded and based in Reno, Nevada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan James Richmond, Esq.
STERNBERG NACCARI & WHITE (BR)
251 Florida St Ste 203
Baton Rouge, LA 70801
Phone: (225) 412-3667
Fax: (225) 286-3046
Email: ryan@snw.law
- and -
Graham H Williams
Keith John David Naccari
Marcia Suzanne Montero
Scott L Sternberg
STERNBERG NACCARI & WHITE
935 Gravier St Ste 2020
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 400-7494
Email: graham@snw.law
keith@snw.law
suzy@snw.law
scott@snw.law
CANADIAN HOCKEY: Carcillo Moves to Certify Systemic Abuse Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Kennedy at yahoo.com reports that the fight to combat systemic
abuse in Canadian hockey is set to take another step Nov. 14-18, as
a motion for certification will be heard in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in a class-action lawsuit, led by former NHLer
Daniel Carcillo and former Western Hockey League player Garrett
Taylor, against the Canadian Hockey League.
According to the website of Koskie Minsky LLP, the lawyers for the
plaintiffs, the "claim alleges widespread and ritualized hazing,
racism, homophobia, sexual and physical abuse in the Canadian major
junior hockey leagues," including the OHL, WHL, and QMJHL.
The certification hearing is a necessary step in identifying the
lawsuit as a class action.
As co-host of The Broadscast and lawyer Samantha Chang clarified,
"In order for a class action to proceed, the court has to determine
or certify that an action should proceed as a class action, appoint
a representative plaintiff (or representative plaintiffs), and
certify the common issues or questions of fact and law to be
determined at trial."
"Certification is a procedural step to weed out cases that aren't
properly class proceedings, and it doesn't determine the merits of
the case," Chang told Yahoo Sports Canada. "The judge will be
focused on whether the representative plaintiff and the proposed
action meet the legislative requirements to proceed as a class
action."
According to court files, Carcillo, who is the probable
representative plaintiff, and a large group of former CHL members
allege leagues and teams "acted in concert in perpetuating a toxic
system which condones violent, discriminatory, racist, sexualized,
and homophobic conduct, including physical and sexual assault."
Carcillo hopes this lawsuit and the truth it seeks will allow more
victims to safely come forward, and inevitably create safer
reporting systems and environments within the sport.
"I think it's important to ensure that there's an avenue for
victims to be able to come forward and share their stories, and to
create a safer environment moving forward for minors to come up in
a positive culture and hopefully to not have to experience what has
traditionally gone on for several decades," Carcillo told Yahoo
Sports Canada. [GN]
CAPITAL ONE N.A.: Meehan Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One, N.A. The
case is styled as John Meehan, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated individuals v. Capital One, N.A., Case No.
3:22-cv-00823-GTS-ML (E.D. Va., Sept. 21, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Banks and Banking for the
Electronic Fees Transfer Act.
Capital One Bank (USA), National Association --
https://www.capitalone.com/ -- operates as a bank.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
James Patrick McNichol, Esq.
Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 424-7576
Fax: (703) 591-0167
Email: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
casey@kellyguzzo.com
pat@kellyguzzo.com
kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Cameron S Matheson, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
4870 Sadler Road, Suite 301
Glen Allen, VA 23060
Phone: (804) 762-5332
Email: cameronmatheson@dwt.com
- and -
Frederick Benjamin Burnside, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP (WA-NA)
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 622-3150
Fax: (206) 757-7016
Email: fredburnside@dwt.com
- and -
Tim Cunningham, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE (OR-NA)
1300 Southwest 5th Avenue, Suite 2300
Portland, OR 97201
Phone: (503) 241-2300
Fax: (503) 778-5299
Email: timcunningham@dwt.com
CASH EXPRESS: Collins Sues Over Failure to Secure Consumers' Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TROY COLLINS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CASH EXPRESS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-00871 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 28, 2022) is a class action against
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
sensitive information that consumers entrusted to it, including,
without limitation their names, dates of birth, contact
information, government identification, medical details, and
financial information.
According to the complaint, the Defendant disregarded the rights of
Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully,
recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate
and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class
Members' personal information was safeguarded, failing to take
available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and
failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols,
policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for
internal use.
As the result, the personal information of Plaintiff and Class
Members was compromised through disclosure to, and exfiltration by,
an unknown and unauthorized third party. The Plaintiff and Class
Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their
information is and remains safe, and they should be entitled to
injunctive and other equitable relief, says the suit.
The Plaintiff has a loan procured through Cash Express and was, at
all relevant times, a consumer of Cash Express services.
Cash Express is a loan company, dealing with "payday" loans,
installment loans, small lines of credit, gold purchases, title
loans, and check cashing services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher N. Coyne, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN-NASHVILLE, PLLC
810 Broadway, Suite 105
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 780-6322
E-mail: ccoyne@forthepeople.com
- and -
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
Francesca Kester, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
E-mail: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
fkester@ForThePeople.com
CENTER FOR SCIENCE: Henderson Suit Transferred to W.D. Michigan
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Duane Henderson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Center for Science in the Public
Interest, Case No. 2:22-cv-12191 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for Michigan Eastern District of Michigan, to the
U.S. District Court for Western District of Michigan on Sept. 21,
2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00870-HYJ-RSK to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
The Center for Science -- https://www.cspinet.org/ -- in the Public
Interest is a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit watchdog and
consumer advocacy group that advocates for safer and healthier
foods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: 646.837.7150
Fax: 212.989.9163
Email: jmarchese@bursor.com
pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Phone: 248-841-2200
Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
CENTRO DE SALUD: Kabitzke Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alexandria Ilene Kabitzke, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Centro de Salud de La
Comunidad de San Ysidro doing business as: San Ysidro Health, Does
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-02022-00036081-CU-OE-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court, San Diego County, California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on
Nov. 9, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01752-H-BGS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
Centro de Salud de La Comunidad de San Ysidro doing business as San
Ysidro Health -- https://www.syhc.org/ -- is an innovative
organization committed to providing compassionate healthcare
services to all.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony L. Draper, Esq.
Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Kacey E. Cook, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92318
Phone: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6676
Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
kacey@jameshawkinsaplc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Dessislava P Nintcheva, Esq.
WILSON TURNER KOSMO
550 West C Street, Suite 1050
San Diego, CA 92101-3532
Phone: (619) 236-9600
Fax: (619) 236-9669
Email: dnintcheva@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
- and -
Maria C Roberts, Esq.
Noel J. Meza, Esq.
GREENE & ROBERTS
402 West Broadway, Suite 1025
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 398-3400
Fax: (619) 330-4907
Email: mroberts@greeneroberts.com
CHOCMOD USA INC: James Sues Over False and Deceptive Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon James, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Chocmod USA Inc. and OverSeas Food Trading Ltd., Case
No. 1:22-at-00879 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2022), is brought seeking to
challenge the Defendants' false and deceptive practices in the
marketing, distribution, and sale of their Truffettes de France
Truffles product in the U.S. (the "Product").
Specifically, the front label of the Product includes the
conspicuous representation "Truffettes de France," a French phrase
literally translating to "Truffles from France." This is an
unequivocal representation that the chocolate truffles are made in
and imported from France. Unbeknownst to consumers however, the
Product is not made in or imported from France.
The Plaintiff and other consumers purchased the Product and paid a
premium price based upon their reliance on Defendants' front label
"Truffettes de France" representation. Had the Plaintiff and other
consumers been aware that the Product was not made in France, they
would not have purchased the Product or would have paid
significantly less for it. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Class
members have been injured by Defendants' deceptive business
practices, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product from a retailer in Merced,
California.
Chocmod USA Inc. is responsible for the formulation, manufacturing,
labeling, advertising, distribution and sale of the Product
nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
Joshua Nassir, Esq.
Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP
10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 751-5948
Email: bheikali@treehouselaw.com
jnassir@treehouselaw.com
rglezakos@treehouselaw.com
CHOICE HEALTH INSURANCE: Boykin Files Suit in D. South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Choice Health
Insurance LLC. The case is styled as Jennifer Boykin, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Choice Health
Insurance LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03940-JD (D.S.C., Nov. 8, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Choice Health Insurance -- https://choicehealthins.com/ --
specializes in low to no cost health insurance helping individuals
find the right coverage.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Glenn V. Ohanesian, Esq.
OHANESIAN AND OHANESIAN
PO Box 2433
Myrtle Beach, SC 29578
Phone: (843) 626-7193
Email: ohanesianlawfirm@cs.com
CLEVELAND AVE: Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadlines OK'd in Hogan
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA HOGAN, et al., v.
CLEVELAND AVE RESTAURANT, INC., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-02883-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A.
Preston Deavers entered an order granting the unopposed motion of
the Cheeks Defendants, Fantasyland West Defendants, House of Babes
Defendants, BACE, the OC, and Defendant Greg Flaig for an Extension
of time to:
-- respond to the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify
this case as a collective action;
certify this as a Rule 23 Class Action; and
send notice of this action to all similarly situated
employees.
As requested in the motion, the moving Defendants shall have until
October 31, 2022 to respond to the motion for class certification.
Cleveland Ave. is in the Sandwiches and Submarines Shop business.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TxQnY4 at no extra charge.[CC]
COGNIZANT TECH: Palmer Bid for Class Certification Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTY PALMER, VARTAN
PIROUMIAN, BRIAN COX, and JEAN-CLAUDE FRANCHITTI, v. COGNIZANT
TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION and COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS
U.S. CORPORATION, Case No. 2:17-cv-06848-DMG-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order:
1. denying Cognizant's motion to exclude the testimony of Dr.
Phillip Johnson;
2. denying Cognizant's motion to exclude the testimony of Dr.
Ronil Hira;
3. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions;
4. denying Cognizant's MSJ as to Brian Cox's individual
claim; and
5. granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.
The Court certifies the following Class as to Plaintiffs'
Section 1981 claim:
"Between September 18, 2013 to the date of class
certification, all individuals who are not of South Asian
race or Indian national origin and who were terminated
from the bench while employed within a Cognizant Class
Band in the U.S., excluding any individuals bound by an
agreement to arbitrate termination claims with Cognizant.
The Court certifies the following Subclass as to
Plaintiffs' Title VII claim:
"Between December 15, 2016 to the date of class
certification, all individuals who are not of South Asian
race or Indian national origin and who were terminated
from the bench while employed within a Cognizant Class
Band in the U.S., excluding any individuals bound by an
agreement to arbitrate termination claims with Cognizant."
The Court appoints Brian Cox and Vartan Piroumanian as
Class Representatives, and appoints Kotchen & Low LLP and
Yadegar, Minoofar & Soleymani LLP as Class Counsel.
This action was filed in this Court on September 18, 2017. Compl.
After the Court resolved two motions to dismiss, the Plaintiffs
Christy Palmer, Vartan Piroumanian, Edward Cox, and Jean-Claude
Franchitti filed the operative Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") on
January 14, 2021.
In their TAC, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants discriminate
against non-South Asians and non-Indians in hiring, promotion,
and terminations.
Cognizant offers analytics, business consulting, portals and
content management, enterprise risk, and security solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GhDLRUat no extra charge.[CC]
COLLECTION SITES: Montejano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collection Sites LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Leslie Montejano, Josephine Marie
Ryan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Collection Sites LLC, Medivolve Inc., Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2022-00329433-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov.
7, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited"
Medivolve Inc. -- https://medivolve.ca/ -- is a health care
company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christina Marie Lucio, Esq.
FARNAES & LUCIO, APC
2235 Encinitas Blvd., Ste. 210
Encinitas, CA 92024-4357
Phone: 760-942-9433
Fax: 760-452-4421
Email: clucio@farnaeslaw.com
COMPASS MINERALS: Faces Securities Class Suit From Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to Newsdesk, Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel,
LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf
of investors of Compass Minerals International, Inc. (NYSE: CMP)
("Compass" or the "Company"). The class action is on behalf of
shareholders who purchased Compass securities between October 31,
2017, and November 18, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until
December 20, 2022, to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in
this action.
What actions may one take at this time? If one suffered a loss and
is interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff, please
contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone at
619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.
To join this action, one can click or copy and paste the link below
into a browser:
https://www.cognitoforms.com/JohnsonFistel/CompassMineralsInternationalInc2
There is no cost or obligation to any shareholders.
According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants
repeatedly assured investors that the continuous mining and
continuous haulage ("CMCH") upgrade at the Goderich mine, the
largest underground rock salt mine in the world located in Ontario,
Canada, was on track to materially reduce costs and boost Compass
operating results starting in 2018. However, the defendant's
statements were misleading because they failed to tell investors
that costs at the Goderich mine were increasing rather than
decreasing. The Compass class action lawsuit further alleges that
the defendants also misrepresented the amount of salt Compass was
able to produce at Goderich using the new CMCH equipment and failed
to disclose how the known and ongoing production shortfalls it was
experiencing were reasonably expected to reduce its future
operating income. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Compass class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the Compass class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff.
For more information regarding the lead plaintiff process please
refer to https://www.johnsonfistel.com/lead-plaintiff-deadlines.
About Johnson Fistel, LLP:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York, and Georgia. The
firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits.
Johnson Fistel seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations
of federal securities laws. For more information about the firm and
its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney
advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
Investor Relations
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Granados Sues Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Magaly Granados, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01590
(W.D. Wash., Nov. 7, 2022), is brought to address the Defendant's
inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that
the Defendant collected and maintained, and for failing to provide
timely and adequate notice to the Plaintiff and other Class Members
that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access
by an unknown third party.
In order to provide its debt-collection services, the Defendant
acquires, stores, processes, analyzes, and otherwise utilizes the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information,
including, but not limited to, name, contact information, financial
account numbers, and Social Security numbers ("Private
Information").
On June 17, 2022 Defendant discovered an interruption of its
services affecting certain computer system (the "Data Breach").
Through an investigation, Defendant discovered that "an external
actor gained unauthorized access to its systems and deployed a
ransomware malware. The investigation also revealed that the
unauthorized actor deployed certain data extraction tools on one
storage drive that is used to save and share files externally."
Despite discovering the Data Breach on or around June 17, 2022,
Defendant did not notify Plaintiff and Class Members until October
24, 2022 ("Notice of Data Breach"). As a result of the Data Breach,
Plaintiff and over 640,000 Class Members suffered injury and
ascertainable losses in the form of the present and imminent threat
of fraud and identity theft, loss of the benefit of their bargain,
out-of-pocket expenses, loss of value of their time reasonably
incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, and the
loss of, and diminution in, value of their personal information. In
addition, Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive confidential
Information was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data
Breach. This information, while compromised and taken by
unauthorized third parties, remains also in the possession of
Defendant, and without additional safeguards and independent review
and oversight, remains vulnerable to additional hackers and theft.
The Defendant did not notify Plaintiff and Class Members that their
Private Information was subject to unauthorized access resulting
from the Data Breach until October 24, 2022, over four months after
the Data Breach was discovered. The Data Breach was a direct result
of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members
by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or
negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized
intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately
robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard patient
Private Information; failing to take standard and reasonably
available steps to prevent the Data Breach; failing to properly
train its staff and employees on proper security measures; and
failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt notice of the
Data Breach, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual citizen of the State of Florida
residing in the City of Orlando who received a Notice of Data
Security Incident Letter from Defendant, dated October 26, 2022.
The Defendant is a large third-party debt collection company with
its headquarters in Renton, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101-3147
Phone: (206) 682-5600
Fax: (206) 682-2992
Email: jdennett@tousley.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Philip Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-7300
Fax: (612) 336-2940
Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Lamons Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
KERRY LAMONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., Defendant,
Case 2:22-cv-01597 (W.D. Wash., Nov. 8, 2022) alleges violation of
the Washington State Consumer Protection Act.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, on June 17, 2022,
Convergent learned of a possible data security issue when some of
the company's computer systems stopped functioning properly. The
company's investigation confirmed that an unauthorized party
executed a malware attack that allowed the unauthorized party to
gain access to certain files containing highly-sensitive
information (the "Data Breach").
The highly-sensitive consumer data that was made available to the
unauthorized party included names, contact information, financial
account numbers, and social security numbers ("personally
identifiable information," or "PII").
The Data Breach was the result of Convergent's failure to properly
secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class's sensitive personal
information stored within its network. The Defendant maintained
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII in a reckless and negligent
manner. In particular, the PII was maintained on Defendant's
network system in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. As a
result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have
suffered injury and ascertainable losses in the form of the present
and imminent threat of fraud and identity theft, out-of-pocket
expenses and value of time reasonably incurred to remedy or
mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, loss of value of their
personal information, and loss of the benefit of their bargain,
says the suit.
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC. operate as a third party debt
collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
Cecily C. Jordan, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
Email: kstephens@tousley.com
jdennett@tousley.com
cjordan@tousley.com
-and-
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
Email: mreich@zlk.com
cmaccarone@zlk.com
CRICKET WIRELESS: Gibson Files Disability Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
JASON GIBSON, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. CRICKET WIRELESS LLC and LAU & CHAN LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-09209 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022) seeks declaratory,
injunctive and equitable relief, as well as monetary damages and
attorney's fees, costs and expenses to redress Defendants unlawful
disability discrimination against Plaintiff, in violation of Title
III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing
regulation.
The Defendants are public accommodations as they own, lease, lease
to, control or operate a place of public accommodation. On August
22, 2022, the Plaintiff discovered, upon his visit, that the
Defendants' premises contained architectural barriers. Accordingly,
Defendants' place of public accommodation prevents and/or restricts
access to Plaintiff, a person with a disability. The services,
features, elements and spaces of Defendants' place of public
accommodation are not readily accessible to, or usable by the
plaintiff as required by the ADA Accessibility Guidelines, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff, an adult male confined to a wheelchair, is being
deprived of the meaningful choice of freely visiting the same
accommodations readily available to the general public and
plaintiff is further deterred and discouraged from additional
travel due to Defendants' ongoing non-compliance with the ADA, the
suit asserts.
Cricket Wireless LLC is an American prepaid wireless service
provider, owned by AT&T.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Bell, Esq.
BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd, Suite 208
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 280-3008
E-mail: JB@BellLG.com
CROWN BRIDGE: DarkPulse Files RICO Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crown Bridge Partners
LLC, et al. The case is styled as DarkPulse, Inc., Social Life
Network, Inc., Redhawk Holdings Corp., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Crown Bridge Partners LLC,
Soheil Ahdoot, Sepas Ahdoot, Case No. 1:22-cv-08163-VM (D. Colo.,
Sept. 23, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for
Racketeering (RICO) Act.
Crown Bridge Partners is a New York-based investment firm .[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gustave Paul Passanante, Esq.
THE BASILE LAW FIRM P.C.
390 North Broadway, Suite 140
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (516) 455-1500
Email: gus@thebasilelawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey Fleischmann, Esq.
JEFFREY FLEISCHMANN
150 Broadway, Suite 900
New York, NY 10038
Phone: (646) 657-9623
Email: jf@lawjf.com
DAI ENTERPRISES: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed DAI Enterprises LLC. The case
is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons v. DAI Enterprises LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-09497 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
DAI Enterprises doing business as Taya -- https://tayabeauty.com/
-- is an ethically sourced hair care from the finest
super-botanicals of the Amazon rainforest.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
DARCARS OF RAILROAD: Gaska Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Arkadiusz Josef Gaska, Katarzyna Gaska,
individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated
v. DARCARS of Railroad Avenue, Inc., Case No. FBT-CV22-6117756-S,
was removed from the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District
of Fairfield, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut on Sept. 23, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01201-MPS to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
DARCARS -- https://www.darcars.com/ -- provides a great car buying
experience with our convenient Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Florida
dealerships.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel S. Blinn, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW GROUP
35 Cold Spring Rd., Suite 512
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
Phone: (860) 571-0408
Fax: (860) 571-7457
Email: dblinn@consumerlawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Patrick M. Fahey, Esq.
SHIPMAN & GOODWIN LLP
One Constitution Plaza
Hartford, CT 06103
Phone: (860) 251-5000
Fax: (860) 251-5219
Email: pfahey@goodwin.com
DELTA AIR LINES: Emmett Sues Over Wiretapping Communications
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Emmett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01568-RJC (W.D.
Pa., Nov. 4, 2022), is brought against Delta for wiretapping the
electronic communications of visitors to its website, www.delta.com
in violation the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic
Surveillance Control Act and constitutes an invasion of the privacy
rights of website visitors.
Delta procures third-party vendors, such as FullStory, to embed
snippets of JavaScript computer code ("Session Replay Code") on
Delta's website, which then deploys on each website visitor's
internet browser for the purpose intercepting and recording the
website visitor's electronic communications with Delta's website,
including their mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes (such as text
being entered into an information field or text box), URLs of web
pages visited, and/or other electronic communications in real-time
("Website Communications"). These third-party vendors
(collectively, "Session Replay Providers") create and deploy the
Session Replay Code at Delta's request.
After intercepting and capturing the Website Communications, Delta
and the Session Replay Providers use those Website Communications
to recreate website visitors' entire visit to www.delta.com. The
Session Replay Providers create a video replay of the user's
behavior on the website and provide it to Delta for analysis.
Delta's procurement of the Session Replay Providers to secretly
deploy the Session Replay Code results in the electronic equivalent
of "looking over the shoulder" of each visitor to Delta's website
for the entire duration of their website interaction.
While visiting Delta's website, the Plaintiff fell victim to the
Defendant's unlawful monitoring, recording, and collection of the
Plaintiff's Website Communications with www.delta.com. Unknown to
the Plaintiff, Delta procures and embeds Session Replay Code on its
website. During the website visit, the Plaintiff's Website
Communications were captured by Session Replay Code and sent to
various Session Replay Providers the Plaintiff brings this action
to seek all civil remedies provided under the causes of action,
including but not limited to compensatory, statutory, and/or
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff has visited www.delta.com on his computer while in
Pennsylvania.
Delta is one of the largest airlines whose planes serve more than
275 destinations in 50 countries and operates the website
www.delta.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
Patrick D. Donathen, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: 412-322-9243
Facsimile: 412-231-0246
Email: gary@lcllp.com
kelly@lcllp.com
jamisen@lcllp.com
elizabeth@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
patrick@lcllp.com
DENNIS REAGLE: Byrd Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DENNIS REAGLE, et al.
The case is styled as Stephen A. Byrd, on behalf of Himself and
others similarly situated v. DENNIS REAGLE, Warden Indiana State
Reformatory individual & official capacity; EARNEST, GCH Captain
individual & official capacity; A. WATSON, Grievance Specialist
individual & official capacity; Case No. 1:22-cv-02151-JRS-KMB
(S.D. Ind., Nov. 4, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Petitions - Prison
Condition for Prisoner Civil Rights.
Dennis Reagle is the warden of the Indiana State Reformatory which
is a maximum security Indiana Department of Correction prison for
adult males.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants appear pro se.
DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: Judge Tosses Suit Over Biometrics Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland wrote through Cookcountyrecord.com that a federal
judge has let DePaul University escape a class action complaint
accusing it of breaking a state biometrics law when logging facial
scans for students taking exams online.
The ruling, which U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman issued on
Nov. 4, turned on the school's argument it qualifies for a
"financial institution" exemption under the Biometric Information
Privacy Act. Gettleman's opinion stands at odds with conclusions
reached in other federal BIPA litigation.
DePaul student Cody Powell initiated the class action in Cook
County Circuit Court, alleging DePaul deployed online exam
proctoring technology through a product known as Respondus Monitor
allegedly without complying with the BIPA law's requirements
regarding informed consent and data retention.
The law generally requires any business that scans an Illinois
resident's so-called biometric identifiers - such as fingerprints,
retinas or face - to first obtain written consent to conduct the
scans, and to provide the people being scanned with notices
concerning how the data will be stored, used and ultimately
destroyed.
DePaul removed the complaint to federal court, then moved to
dismiss the case.
According to Powell's complaint and similar lawsuits, Respondus and
other online test technology, which gained popularity as schools
shifted to online education at the outset of the Covid-19 pandemic,
locks a computer to allow students to interact only with the exam
while they are taking the test. Then, the product uses the
computer's camera and microphone to confirm the student's identity,
in part by scanning the student's face. The program then monitors
the student's face and eyes throughout the exam to ensure they are
not receiving help from off-camera.
In arguing for dismissal, DePaul said it should qualify as a
"financial institution" subject to Title V of the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a class of businesses not required to
follow the BIPA law's notice and consent requirements, based on its
participation in the U.S. Department of Education's Federal Student
Aid Program.
Gettleman agreed with DePaul. Gettleman's ruling comes about two
months after his colleague, U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland,
refused to dismiss a nearly identical complaint against
Resurrection University. Rowland agreed the BIPA exemption "applies
to institutions of higher education that are significantly engaged
in financial activities" and agreed schools like Resurrection can
qualify as financial institutions under Title V. But she said the
question was one of fact that should be determined later in
proceedings. So, she refused to allow Resurrection to dismiss the
case.
Rowland's opinion had followed a July 15 decision issued by U.S.
District Judge Andrea Wood, who said the Illinois Institute of
Technology also had to prove its status as a Title V financial
institution before she would dismiss a complaint regarding its use
of Respondus Monitor.
Gettleman noted he took over the DePaul case from U.S. District
Judge Robert Dow, who recently left the federal bench in Chicago
for a post as counselor to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John
Roberts.
Judge Gettleman said he relied heavily on the Federal Trade
Commission's recognition of colleges and universities as Title V
financial institutions.
Specifically, Gettleman said he found "the FTC's position, issued
at a time that it had both enforcement and rulemaking authority,
particularly persuasive because it evidences longstanding,
consistent and well-reasoned interpretation of the statute that it
had been tasked to administer."
Gettleman further said the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act transferred to the
Consumer Financial Protection Authority the general authority to
make Title V rulings, and the next year the new agency "adopted and
republished the privacy rules originally promulgated by the FTC."
He said at least five other courts agreed the BIPA exemption
applies in line with DePaul's arguments, including Wood's July
opinion.
Although student loans aren't DePaul's primary business, Gettleman
said, it constitutes a significant enough portion of the schools'
activities to trigger exemption. He further rejected Powell's
argument DePaul can't raise the exemption as an affirmative
defense, saying Powell didn't challenge DePaul's participation in
the federal student aid program, which is the underlying fact used
to establish his dismissal.
Colleges and other businesses targeted by class actions under the
Illinois BIPA law could face potentially massive payouts, if such
cases were to go to trial.
Under the BIPA law, plaintiffs can demand damages of $1,000-$5,000
per violation. The law has been interpreted to define individual
violations as each time a biometric identifier as scanned. When
multiplied across thousands of potential plaintiffs, the damages
could quickly mount well into the many millions of dolllars.
For example, in the first BIPA class action lawsuit to go to trial,
a jury recently ordered freight rail company BNSF to pay $228
million to a group of about 14,000 truck drivers who claimed the
company violated the BIPA law in the way it required the drivers to
scan their handprints to verify their identities when entering BNSF
rail yards. BSNF failed to win dismissal of the case, even though
it noted the handprint scans were part of anti-terrorism security
measures required by the federal government.
Other businesses targeted by BIPA class actions have opted to
settle to avoid such risk at trial. Facebook and Google, for
instance, notably agreed to settle BIPA class actions against them
related to face scans of photos uploaded to their platforms.
Facebook paid $650 million and Google, $100 million, to end the
lawsuits.
Most other settlements to date have ranged from hundreds of
thousands of dollars to as much as $50 million.
Powell and the class of additional DePaul student plaintiffs have
been represented in the case by attorneys Brian K. Murphy Jonathan
P. Misny, of the firm of Murray Murphy Moul + Basil, of Columbus,
Ohio; and Mary C. Turke, Samuel J. Strauss, and Raina C. Borrelli,
of Turke & Strauss, of Madison, Wisconsin.
DePaul has been represented by attorneys Michael D. Hayes and Karen
L. Courtheoux, of the firm of Husch Blackwell, of Chicago.
Jonathan Bilyk contributed to this report. [GN]
DON ROBERTO: Velazquez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN VELAZQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DON ROBERTO JEWELERS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-09247 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's failure to maintain, and operate its website
http://www.donrobertojewelers.com/to be fully accessible for the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people in violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human
Rights Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its
website, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to
change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers.
Don Roberto Jewelers, Inc. retails jewelry products and
accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Jackson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:22-cv-01280-JPS (E.D. Wis., Oct. 28, 2022) is a collective
and class action brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection
Laws for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid regular and agreed
upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory
and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court
may deem appropriate.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee in the position of collections counselor in
early June 2020. In approximately February 2021, Plaintiff's
employment with Defendant ended.
Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc. is a third-party mortgage servicing
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
EAGLE FAMILY FOODS: Gibson Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Gibson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Eagle Family Foods Group LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02147-TWP-DLP (S.D. Ind., Nov. 4, 2022), is brought seeking
damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's false and
misleading labeling practices with regard to its popcorn under the
"Popcorn Indiana" brand ("Product").
Indiana ranks second in the nation in popcorn production only to
Nebraska. Popcorn is the official snack of Indiana, as this
industry began here. This is largely due to the efforts of Orville
Redenbacher, in addition to other significant companies such as
Cousin Willie's and Pop Weaver. Indiana's connection with popcorn
extends across the entire value chain, from the growing of the
crops to the popping of the kernels.
Consumers expect Popcorn Indiana to be made in Indiana, from start
to finish and contain the unique characteristics of popcorn made
there. Popcorn Indiana refers to the town with this name in Perry
County, Indiana, known for its history of popcorn production. The
Defendant's label includes the statement "Popcorn Indiana" with
other labeling elements, giving consumers the impression it is made
in Indiana, from the harvesting of the corn to the popping of the
kernels.
Many consumers know that state names are preceded by names of
cities, and may surmise that "Popcorn" in "Popcorn Indiana" refers
to a city where the company is from and the Product is made, from
start to finish. Those consumers who do not know that "Popcorn"
refers to acity believe "Popcorn Indiana" is the name of the brand
because it is from Indiana, where the Product is made, which is
known for its popcorn.
However, Popcorn Indiana has no real connection to Popcorn, Indiana
or Indiana beyond the raw materials used, which can be said of a
significant number of popcorn brands. Popcorn Indiana is neither
from nor made in Indiana. That the Product is neither from nor made
in Indiana is not disclosed on the front or back of the packaging.
This information is only disclosed on Defendant's website, which
states the Product is made in Waukegan, Illinois. Popcorn Indiana
is deceptively misdescriptive as a name.
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 3 oz, 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 purchased the Product on one or more occasions within
the statutes of limitations.
Eagle Family Foods Group LLC manufactures, labels, markets, and
sells popcorn under the "Popcorn Indiana" brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
EBAY INC: George Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Calls
-------------------------------------------------------
Kevin George, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. eBay Inc., Case No. 158066806 (Fla. 13h Judicial Cir.
Ct., Hillsborough Cty., Sept. 23, 2022), is brought against the
Defendant for the Defendant's violations of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act by engaging in unsolicited telephonic sales
calls.
To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in
telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior
express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Plaintiff and
the Class members have been aggrieved by the Defendant's unlawful
conduct, which adversely affected and infringed upon their legal
rights not to be subjected to the illegal acts at issue. Through
this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory
damages on behalf of the Plaintiff individually and the Class
members and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual and a "called party."
The Defendant is a consumer goods and services retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
2110 West Platt Street
Tampa, FL 33606
Phone: (813) 422–7782
Facsimile: (813) 422–7783
Email: ben@theKRfirm.com
EFFICIENT FAST: Rodriguez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Alberto Aviles Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. EFFICIENT FAST CONSTRUCTION CORP. and
JOSE RAMIREZ, as an individual, Case No. 2:22-cv-06820 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 8, 2022), is brought against the Defendants to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages for egregious violations of state and
federal wage and hour laws arising out of the Plaintiff's
employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.
Although the Plaintiff regularly worked 69 hours or more hours each
week from in or around from in or around June 2019 until in or
around August 2020, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at a wage
rate of time and a half for his hours regularly worked over 40
hours in a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime
provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. Further, the Plaintiff
was not compensated at all for his last 7 weeks of employment by
the Defendants. The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of
the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous
place at the location of their employment as required by both the
NYLL and the FLSA. The Defendants willfully failed to keep payroll
records as required by both NYLL and the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a concrete mixer,
painter and brick worker while performing related miscellaneous
duties for the the Defendants, from June 2019 until August 2020.
EFFICIENT FAST CONSTRUCTION CORP., is a New York domestic business
corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Phone: 718-263-9591
Fax: 718-263-9598
EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Due for Lead Plaintiff Naming on Jan. 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Eiger BioPharmaceuticals,
Inc. ("Eiger" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EIGR) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased, or
otherwise acquired Eiger securities between March 10, 2021, and
October 4, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such
investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's
site: www.bgandg.com/eigr.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to
investors that:
(1) Defendants overstated Eiger's clinical and regulatory drug
development expertise;
(2) Defendants failed to properly assess, and/or ignored issues
with, the design of the TOGETHER study and its ability to support
the peginterferon lambda EAU;
(3) there were issues with the conduct of the TOGETHER study and/or
the TOGETHER study was not properly designed for the peginterferon
lambda EUA in the current context of the pandemic;
(4) as a result, the FDA was unlikely to approve the submission of
a peginterferon lambda EUA;
(5) as a result of all the foregoing, peginterferon lambda's
regulatory and commercial prospects for the treatment of COVID-19
were overstated; and
(6) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If any investors
wish to review a copy of the Complaint, one can visit the firm's
site: www.bgandg.com/eigr or contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Law Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If any
investors suffered a loss in Eiger, one has until January 3, 2023,
to request that the Court appoint one as lead plaintiff. Any
investor's ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that
one serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC represents investors in
securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits.
The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for
investors nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Schoen Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald A. Schoen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC., DAVID A.
CORY, and SRIRAM RYALI, Case No. 3:22-cv-06985 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 8,
2022), is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
and entities other than the Defendants that purchased or otherwise
acquired Eiger securities between March 10, 2021 and October 4,
2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials, as a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities.
Eiger's product candidates include, among others, peginterferon
lambda. Peginterferon lambda is being evaluated for, inter alia,
the treatment of COVID-19 in the TOGETHER study, which is an
independent multi-center, investigator-sponsored, randomized,
placebo-controlled adaptive platform Phase 3 study evaluating
multiple therapeutics in newly diagnosed, high-risk,
non-hospitalized patients with mild-to moderate COVID-19.
Peginterferon lambda was added to the TOGETHER study in May 2021.
In March 2022, based on the results of the TOGETHER study, Eiger
announced that it would submit an Emergency Use Authorization
("EUA") request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
for peginterferon lambda for the treatment of patients with mild-to
moderate COVID-19 (the "peginterferon lambda EUA").
The 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: Defendants overstated
Eiger's clinical and regulatory drug development expertise;
Defendants failed to properly assess, and/or ignored issues with,
the design of the TOGETHER study and its ability to support the
peginterferon lambda EUA; there were issues with the conduct of the
TOGETHER study and/or the TOGETHER study was not properly designed
for the peginterferon lambda EUA in the current context of the
pandemic; as a result, the FDA was unlikely to approve the
submission of a peginterferon lambda EUA; as a result of all the
foregoing, peginterferon lambda's regulatory and commercial
prospects for the treatment of COVID-19 were overstated; and as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On September 6, 2022, Eiger issued a press release "providing an
update on the status of its planned request for EUA of
peginterferon lambda for the treatment of patients with
mild-to-moderate COVID-19 based on its most recent communications
with the FDA." On this news, Eiger's stock price fell $2.51 per
share, or 29.36%, to close at $6.04 per share on September 6, 2022.
Then, on October 5, 2022, Eiger announced that it would not seek an
EUA request for peginterferon lambda after the FDA had "denied the
request for a pre-EUA meeting." On this news, Eiger's stock price
fell $0.37 per share, or 5.01%, to close at $7.02 per share on
October 5, 2022.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff acquired Eiger securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.
Eiger is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company that focuses
on the development and commercialization of targeted therapies for
rare and ultra-rare diseases.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 405-7190
Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
ENTREPRISES VIVRE: Violates Consumer Protection Law, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mandy Sims at awanireview.com reports that the Quebec Supreme Court
has just authorized a class action lawsuit against Entreprises
Vivre en Forme, which operates 67 Econofitness gyms in 11 regions
of Quebec.
The plaintiff, a man named Bobby Karius, argues that the company
violated consumer protection law by unilaterally changing the terms
for platinum subscriptions, which were guaranteeing unlimited
access to its facilities.
According to Droit Inc. Carius, an STM inspector, opted for the
platinum subscription in February 2020. A month later, the COVID-19
pandemic prevented him from benefiting from it, although his
subscription included unlimited access to showers and other
facilities, as well as the ability to share membership cards with
relatives.
Gyms Closed
Econofitness forced to close temporarily due to sanitary measures,
Mr. Karius' subscription so that he could regain months of
inactivity, but that did not satisfy him. So he decided to file a
class action.
Gyms have been closed for 15 months by order of the Quebec
government. Fearful and fearful of losing their business due to
enforced inactivity, a few gym owners defied the authorities in
2020.
During its authorized partial reopening in March 2021, a Quebec
fitness center, Mega Fitness Gym, was the source of nearly 500
cases of COVID-19 contamination. On February 14, 2022, the
relaxation of health measures allowed a gradual resumption of
activities in gyms.
Aggravating Factor?
In his class action, Mr. Karius alleges that Econofitness continued
to sell subscriptions with unlimited access, when the company could
not honor them. He wants the court to determine whether this
constitutes an error and an aggravating factor.
See also FTQ concerned about new measures in terms of isolation
Mr. Karius wants Econofitness to be required to offer a reduction
in subscription fees or a refund, from the date of changing the
conditions of access to its facilities.
It also seeks punitive damages of $300 to subscribers in addition
to moral damages to be determined by the court.
All persons who have paid for a platinum subscription to
Econofitness Centers in Quebec since March 13, 2020 and who no
longer receive the services promised by the company can be
compensated, if the court rules in favor of Boby Carius.
Both parties will return to court on 1Verse March 2023. [GN]
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALTIES: Tarley Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Tarley, Jr., and Ephraim Wreh, each individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ENVIRONMENTAL
SPECIALTIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00116-M-RJ
(E.D.N.C., Sept. 28, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and to seek a declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable
attorney's fee and costs as a result of Defendant's policy and
practice of failing to pay proper overtime wages under the FLSA.
The Plaintiffs regularly worked hours over 40 in a week. The
Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and other
Hourly Employees were working over 40 hours in some weeks. The
Plaintiffs hours were artificially reduced in weeks in which they
also worked over 40 hours. The Defendant has deprived the
Plaintiffs and other Hourly Employees who were supervised by Peter
Ochse of compensation for all hours worked, including an overtime
premium of 1.5x their regular hourly rate for all hours worked over
40 each week. The Defendant knew or showed reckless disregard for
whether its actions violated the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked at the Defendant's facilities in South
Aurora.
The Defendant is a foreign for-profit corporation maintaining a
website at https://esiliners.com/.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Courtney Harness, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
10800 Financial Centre Parkway
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: harness@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
- and -
Janelle L. Cline, Esq.
CLINE LAW GROUP, PLLC
6329 Oleander Drive
Wilmington, NC 28403
Phone: (910) 661-2012
Facsimile: (910) 338-0557
Email: janelle.cline@clinelawgroupnc.com
EUPHORIC HOME: Johnston Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
JIMMIA JOHNSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EUPHORIC HOME CARE SERVICES LLC and SHADIAH
SMITH, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04340 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 28, 2022)
alleges that that Defendants unlawfully failed to pay Plaintiff and
other similarly-situated individuals overtime compensation at a
rate of one and a half times their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over 40 in a workweek, pursuant to the requirements of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff first began her employment with Defendants on October
12, 2020, when she was hired as a home health aide.
Euphoric Home Care Services LLC is home health care service
provider based in Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Groh, Esq.
MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 273-1054
Facsimile: (215) 525-0210
E-mail: mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
EXCLUSIVE WIRELESS: Whitten Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exclusive Wireless,
Inc. The case is styled as Malina Whitten, on behalf of herself and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Exclusive Wireless,
Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2022-00329603-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 9, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Exclusive Wireless, Inc. -- https://exclusivewireless.net/ -- is a
premium retailer and partner of T-Mobile USA in California, Nevada
and Idaho.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
MICHAEL R. CROSNER A LAW CORP
9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4614
Phone: 818-515-2382
Fax: 310-510-6429
Email: mrclawyer@aol.com
FACET WEALTH INC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Facet Wealth, Inc.
The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Facet Wealth, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-09458 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 4, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Facet Wealth, Inc. -- https://facetwealth.com/ -- is an SEC
registered investment adviser headquartered in Baltimore,
Maryland.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL: D.C. Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fairfax County School
Board, et al. The case is styled as D.C., by his parents and
guardians, Trevor Chaplick and Vivian Chaplick; Hear Our Voices,
Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Fairfax County School Board, Virginia Department Of Education, Dr.
Michelle Reid, Jillian Balow, Case No. 1:22-cv-01070-MSN-IDD (E.D.
Va., Sept. 21, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Education Civil Rights for Civil
Rights of Handicapped Child.
The Fairfax County School Board -- https://fcps.edu/school-board --
is charged by the statutes of Virginia and the regulations of the
Virginia Board of Education to operate the public schools of
Fairfax County by setting general school policy and establishing
guidelines that will ensure the proper administration of the
Fairfax County Public Schools programs.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Brent Adamson, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. (CA-NA)
1900 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 789-3100
Fax: (310) 789-3150
Email: madamson@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
William R. H. Merrill, Esq.
Susman Godfrey LLP (NA-TX)
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 651-9366
Fax: (713) 654-6666
Email: bmerrill@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Rowland Braxton Hill, IV, Esq.
MERRITT LAW, PLLC
919 East Main Street, Suite 1000
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: (804) 916-1602
Email: bhill@merrittfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Julia Bougie Judkins, Esq.
Jeanne-Marie Sidonie Raymond Burke, Esq.
FAIRFAX COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
8115 Gatehouse Road, Ste. 5th Floor
Falls Church, VA 22042
Phone: (571) 423-1035
Fax: (703) 385-1555
Email: jbjudkins@FCPS.edu
jsburke@fcps.edu
FCA US: Hunter Sues Over Defective Electronic Sway Bar
------------------------------------------------------
Eric Hunter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. 22CV403295 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sept. 20, 2022), is brought against the Defendant on behalf of
individuals who purchased or leased any of the 2010-2017 Jeep
Wrangler Rubicon ("JK"); 2010-2017 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon
("JKU"); 2018-2020 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon ("JL"); 2018-2020 Jeep
Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon ("JLU"); 2020 Jeep Gladiator Rubicon;
2010 Dodge Ram 2500 Power Wagon; 2011-2020 Ram 2500 Power Wagon,
vehicles sold with an electronic sway bar disconnect (hereinafter,
the "Class Vehicles"), which contained defective electronic sway
bar disconnects.
A sway bar (also called an "anti-roll bar" or "stabilizer bar") is
part of a car's suspension system. It provides stability and helps
prevent the car from leaning to one side when turning. Driving on
streets or highways with a disconnected or malfunctioning sway bar
is dangerous. For cars that are suitable for off-roading, like the
Class Vehicles here, it is sometimes advantageous to temporarily
disconnect the sway bar when driving in rough terrain. The Class
Vehicles' suspension systems include an electronic sway bar
disconnect, which is intended to allow the driver to quickly
disconnect and reconnect the sway bar with the push of a button on
the dashboard.
The problem, however, is that the electronic sway bar disconnect
has a dangerous defect, and thus poses a serious safety risk to
drivers, occupants, and the general public (hereinafter, "the Sway
Bar Defect"). Specifically, the electronic circuit board for the
sway bar disconnect is in a housing with seals that are prone to
failure and is located in an area that is likely to get wet or
sprayed under ordinary or expected conditions, such as driving over
puddles or in the rain. Failure of the circuit board occurs when
liquid or contaminants breach a seal of the housing, resulting in a
disconnected or malfunctioning sway bar. In some instances, the
electronic sway bar disconnect will fail and not reconnect, forcing
the driver to drive on roads and highways without a sway-bar.
Driving on streets and highways with a disconnected or
malfunctioning sway bar is dangerous.
FCA has known about this problem for years but has taken no action
to fix it. Instead, FCA continues to sell the Class Vehicles as
safe, reliable and fit for their ordinary purpose. As a result,
owners of the Class Vehicles have suffered or will suffer financial
harm, including, inter alia: out-of-pocket expenses to repair or
replace defective electronic sway bar disconnects; costs for future
repairs or replacements; sale of their vehicle at a loss; and/or
diminished value of their vehicles, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff owns a 2019 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon Unlimited.
FCA sells its trucks through FCA franchise dealerships.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
jsmith@bursor.com
- and -
Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: fklorczyk@bursor.com
FLOSPORTS INC: Hill Files Suit in W.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FloSports, Inc. The
case is styled as Jerry Hill, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. FloSports, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00854-LJV (W.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
FloSports -- https://www.flosports.tv/ -- is an over-the-top
subscription sports broadcaster and streaming service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi A. Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 741-5600
Fax: (516) 741-0128
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
FLYING DOG BREWERY: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flying Dog Brewery,
LLC. The case is styled as Daysi Hernandez, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Flying Dog Brewery, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-09585 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Flying Dog Brewery -- https://www.flyingdog.com/ -- is a craft
brewery located in Frederick, Maryland.[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
FOOD52 INC: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Food52, Inc. The case
is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Food52, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09584
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Food52, Inc. -- https://food52.com/ -- operates a web based cooking
community platform.[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
FOX CORPORATION: EWPF Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------
Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W., on behalf of
itself and similarly situated holders of Class A Common Stock of
Fox Corporation v. FOX CORPORATION, Case No. 2022-1007- (Del.
Chancery Ct., Nov. 4, 2022), is brought involving a clear
circumvention of Section 242(b)(2) that requires a clear remedy:
invalidating the November 3, 2022 amendment (the "Charter
Amendment") to Fox's Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation (the "Charter").
Under Section 242(b)(2), when a class or series of stock stands to
lose rights or privileges appurtenant to such securities as a
result of a proposed amendment to a corporate charter, the
adversely affected class or series of stock is statutorily
guaranteed a vote of that class or series on the adverse
amendment.
Fox is controlled by the Murdoch family, with patriarch K. Rupert
Murdock ("R. Murdoch") and his son Lachlan K. Murdoch ("L.
Murdoch") collectively owning approximately 43% of the Company's
Class B Common Stock, and both serving as named "executives" of the
Company. Both also are included among the Company's highest paid
executives, with R. Murdoch also serving as Chair of the board of
directors (the "Board"), and L. Murdoch bearing the title Executive
Chair of the Board.
The majority of the Company's economic interests are represented by
Class A Common Stock, which are not given a vote except as required
by law. Accordingly, the right to bring suit to hold fiduciaries
accountable for breaching their fiduciary duties is particularly
valuable to Class A Common Stockholders. R. Murdoch and L. Murdoch,
in contrast, have a personal interest in exculpating themselves
from potential personal liability for breaching their duty of care
in their capacity as officers.
On November 3, 2022, Fox purported to approve the Charter Amendment
that eliminates one of the bundle of rights appurtenant to
ownership of Class A Common Stock — the right to seek relief for
reckless or grossly negligent conduct among the Company's officers
— through a vote of the Company's Class B Common Stockholders. No
such vote was solicited or obtained from the Class A Common
Stockholders, even though Section 242(b)(2) plainly required such a
vote. Plaintiff seeks judicial relief to invalidate the Charter
Amendment because it was not validly approved by the Class A Common
Stockholders, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff owns shares of Fox Class A Common Stock.
Fox Corporation is a news, sports, and entertainment company, which
produces and distributes content through brands such as FOX News,
FOX Sports, FOX Network, and FOX Television Stations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 554-1400
- and -
Daniel E. Meyer, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 364-3601
FREEDOM FIRST: Urrea Sues Over Illegal Overdraft Fee Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
LEONARDO URREA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FREEDOM FIRST CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case
No. 7:22-cv-00630-MFU (W.D. Va., Oct. 28, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant over the improper assessment and collection
of overdraft fees on debit card transactions authorized on
sufficient funds, and for violation of Regulation E of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act.
According to the complaint, the practice breaches Defendant's
standardized adhesion contract and Defendant's duty of good faith
and fair dealing and unjustly enriches Defendant to the detriment
of its customers including Plaintiff. The complaint also alleges
that because Defendant provided inaccurate and untruthful overdraft
information to Plaintiff and the Classes regarding the overdraft
practice, under Regulation E of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act,
Defendant was not authorized to assess OD Fees to consumers for
debit card and non-recurring debit card charges. However, Defendant
did charge its customers overdraft fees for ATM and debit card
charges, says the suit.
Freedom First Credit Union is a credit union with more than $971
million in assets, and its principal place of business is in
Roanoke City, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Devon J. Munro, Esq.
MUNRO BYRD P.C.
120 Day Ave. SW, First Floor
Roanoke, VA 24016
Telephone: (540) 283-9343
Facsimile: (540) 328-9290
E-mail: dmunro@trialsva.com
- and -
Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 280-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielgold.com
- and -
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq.
JOHNSON FIRM
610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 372-1300
E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com
tyler@yourattorney.com
GANNETT CO: Illegally Discloses Subscribers' Data to Facebook
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter at classaction.org reports that a proposed class
action alleges print and online media publisher Gannett has
unlawfully disclosed certain personal information about its
subscribers to Facebook without consent or adequate disclosure.
The 22-page case claims that when individuals watch video content
offered on Gannett-owned websites, their personal information and
viewing activity are secretly captured and sent to Facebook. The
suit contends that Gannett, the largest newspaper publisher in the
United States, has violated the federal Video Privacy Protection
Act (VPPA) by failing to obtain consumers' express written consent
before disseminating their personally identifiable information to a
third party.
To transmit information to Facebook, Gannett has embedded onto its
webpages a piece of code known as the "Facebook tracking pixel,"
which uses cookies to automatically forward data to the social
media giant, including the titles and URLs of videos watched and
consumers' Facebook User ID numbers (UID).
"A Facebook UID can be used, by anyone, to easily identify a
Facebook user," the case states. "Once the Tracking Methods'
routine exchange of information is complete, the UID that becomes
available can be used by any individual to easily identify a
Facebook user, by simply appending the Facebook UID to
www.facebook.com."
According to the suit, Facebook provides Gannett web developers
with event monitoring tools because access to more data helps
improve its targeted advertising abilities.
Although the company owns more than 260 daily publications whose
associated news sites appear to be "completely separate" from one
another, each site uses media supplied and hosted by Gannett, as
well as the publisher's tracking methods, the case contends.
The two plaintiffs claim that they have subscribed to the
Gannett-owned news site The Tennessean within the past year and
watched video content using devices signed into Facebook. Since the
publication's video content is streamed and hosted by Gannett, the
consumers' data, unbeknownst to them, was sent to Facebook, the
complaint alleges.
"The sign-up process associated with the Gannett Sites does not
include a process for seeking or obtaining informed, written
consent," the filing states. "To the extent information about any
of the Gannett Sites' data sharing can be located, the language is
not presented to subscribers or users along with a checkbox,
e-signature field, or any form of affirmative consent."
The lawsuit looks to cover anyone in the United States with a
subscription to a Gannett Site and who had their personal
information improperly disclosed to Facebook through the use of the
tracking methods outlined in the complaint.[GN]
GENERAC POWER: Haak Sues Over Defective SnapRS 801 Switches
-----------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL HAAK, individually and behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Generac Power Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 8:22-cv-02470 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 28, 2022) seeks redress and
remedy arising from Generac's design, manufacture, marketing, and
distribution of the SnapRS 801 switch, a residential solar energy
system component that is defective and malfunctions by turning on
and off repeatedly, eventually deforming and melting during normal
use, in violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members were
unaware that the SnapRS 801 switches, which they purchased as part
of their residential solar energy systems, were defective and could
reduce or completely impede home energy production from their
residential solar energy systems; could deform, melt, and/or catch
fire during normal use; and, cause damage to Plaintiff's and Class
Members' solar energy systems and homes.
The Plaintiff and Class Members suffered damages as a result of
Generac's misrepresentations and omissions regarding the SnapRS 801
switch. The Plaintiff and Class Members would not have purchased
residential solar energy systems equipped with SnapRS 801 switches
and solar contractors would not have installed solar energy systems
in Plaintiff's and Class Members' homes if the defects and
potential safety hazards of the SnapRS 801 switches had been
disclosed and mitigated, says the suit.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. commonly referred to as Generac, is a
Fortune 1000 American manufacturer of backup power generation
products for residential, light commercial and industrial
markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew L. Baldwin, Esq.
VARGAS GONZALEZ BALDWIN DELOMBARD, LLP
2745 W Fairbanks Avenue First Floor
Winter Park, FL 32789
Telephone: (407) 603-7940
Facsimile: (407) 603-7943
- and -
James Jonathan Rosemergy, Esq.
CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 725-7700
Facsimile: (314) 721-0905
E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com
- and -
Jacob Alex Flint, Esq.
JACOB FLINT LAW
2 CityPlace Dr. #200
St. Louis, MO 63141
Telephone: (314) 677-7613
E-mail: jacob@jacobflintlaw.com
GEORGIA-PACIFIC WOOD: Briefing Schedules Extended in Harris Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE HARRIS and ROY
MCCULLUM, Individually and Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC WOOD PRODUCTS, LLC and GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02530-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas W.
Thrash Jr. entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to
extend briefing schedules:
-- Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Nov. 18, 2022
motion for conditional certification
is due on:
-- Plaintiffs' reply is due on: Dec. 9, 2022.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for class Nov. 21, 2022
certification is due on:
-- The Defendants' response to class Dec. 19, 2022
certification is due on:
-- Plaintiffs' reply is due on: Jan. 17, 2023
Georgia-Pacific Wood Products produces a variety of structural
panels, lumber and composite panel products for residential and
light commercial construction.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3E7QZhxat no extra charge.[CC]
GILEAD SCIENCES: EPPs Seek Approval of Notice Plan Distribution
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Staley et al., v. Gilead
Sciences, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-02573-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the
end-payor plaintiffs (EPP) asks the Court to enter an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part motions for class
certification;
2. approving EPPs' proposed plan for distributing notice to
the End-Payor Classes ("Notice Plan") and authorizing the
distribution of notice.
As a preliminary matter, EPPs respectfully request that the Court
approve the Proposed Order Granting End-Payor Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel, enclosed
herewith.
The EPPs are Brenda Emily Goodrow, Andrew R. Spieldenner, Josh
McDonald, Troy Vazquez-Cain, Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge
20, Insurance Trust Fund, Local No. 1 Health Fund, Teamsters Local
237 Welfare Fund and Teamsters Local 237 Retirees' Benefit Fund,
and Pipe Trades Services MN Welfare Fund , individually and on
behalf of the End-Payor Classes certified under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3).
Gilead Sciences is an American biopharmaceutical company
headquartered in Foster City, California, that focuses on
researching and developing antiviral drugs used in the treatment of
HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, influenza, and COVID-19.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Uxwz8pat no extra
charge.[CC]
Co-Lead Counsel for EPPs Classes are:
Daralyn J. Durie, Esq.
DURIE TANGRI LLP
217 Leidesdorff Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 362-6666
E-mail: ddurie@durietangri.com
- and -
Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
1135 W. 6th Street, Suite 125
Austin, TX 78703
Telephone: (855) 344-3298
E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com 1301
Counsel for End-Payor Plaintiffs are:
Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
Tina Joann Miranda, Esq.
HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
1135 W. 6th Street, Suite 125
Austin, TX 78703
Telephone: (855) 344-3298
E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
tmiranda@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
- and -
W. Henry Huttinger, Esq.
DURIE TANGRI LLP
953 East 3rd Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 992-4422
E-mail: hhuttinger@durietangri.com
- and -
JEFFREY L. KODROFF, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
E-mail: jkodroff@srkattorneys.com
GILEAD SCIENCES: KPH Seeks Approval of Class Cert. Notice Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KPH Healthcare Services,
Inc. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-02573-EMC
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. appointing KCC Class Action Services LLC as the Class
Certification Notice Administrator,
2. approving the proposed manner and form of notice, and
allowing a 35-day opt-out period.
The proposed notice plan involves direct mail notice, publication
notice, and a class certification website.
On September 27, 2022, this Court certified two direct purchaser
classes and ordered the parties to report back within two weeks on
their meet and confer efforts regarding the content and timing of
class certification notice.3 On October 11, 2022, the parties
submitted a joint proposal regarding class notice, which this Court
approved on October 18, 2022.
Gilead Sciences is an American biopharmaceutical company
headquartered in Foster City, California, that focuses on
researching and developing antiviral drugs used in the treatment of
HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, influenza, and COVID-19.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UXoQk5at no extra
charge.[CC]
Liaison Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Classes are:
Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq.
Patrick B. Clayton, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA
3708 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94118
Telephone: (415) 751-4193
Facsimile: (415) 751-0889
E-mail: fos@scarpullalaw.com
pbc@scarpullalaw.com
Co-Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Classes are:
Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
Michele S. Burkholder, Esq.
NASTLAW LLC
1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 923-9300
Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
mburkholder@nastlaw.com
- and -
Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
Erich Schork, Esq.
ROBERTS LAW FIRM US, PC
1920 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (501) 952-8558
E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
erichschork@robertslawfirm.us
GLOBAL EQUITY: Dowell Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Equity
Finance, Inc. The case is styled as Becci Dowell, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Global Equity
Finance, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01772-CCC (M.D. Pa., Nov. 7,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Global Equity Finance -- https://geqfinance.com/ -- is a direct
lender and mortgage broker dedicated to understanding and meeting
each of its customers' unique needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew M Carroll, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW M CARROLL
427 N Packard St.
Hammonton, NJ 08037
Phone: (856) 426-9815
Email: andrewcarrrollesq@gmail.com
- and -
Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
GODIVA INC: Post-Settlement Claims Audits, Challenges Discussed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel wrote in Reuters.com that Something weird is
happening in a class action accusing Godiva Chocolatier Inc. of
falsely marketing its chocolate as being made exclusively in
Belgium.
At issue is the settlement claims process, funded by Godiva and
executed by Kroll Notice Media Solutions. As I've previously
reported, the claims process was called into question earlier this
year by six state attorneys general and a handful of class members
who objected to the proposed deal.
Broadly speaking, they argued that Godiva's incentive was to
depress claims by class members since the proposed settlement would
require the company only to pay class members who submitted valid
claims, rather than establishing a specific fund of money for class
recovery. The AGs, in particular, questioned whether Kroll had done
enough to alert Godiva buyers to file a claim.
U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska of Manhattan concluded that
Kroll's notification plan got the job done. Her April 20 opinion
approving the $7.5 million settlement cited a declaration from
Kroll with statistics that, in Preska's view, proved the success of
the claims process. Nearly 900,000 purported purchasers had filed
claims in response to a variety of notifications. Kroll had
rejected about 318,000 of those claims, according to its
declaration. But the administrator deemed nearly 510,000 claims to
be valid, Preska said, putting Godiva on the hook to pay out about
$7.5 million to class members.
Preska said objectors' fears that Godiva would meddle with the
claims process to reduce its liability "do not appear to have been
realized."
Did she speak too soon?
On Thursday, class counsel from Faruqi & Faruqi and The Wand Law
Firm told Preska in a letter that she may want to take another look
at the claims process, even though she has already approved the
settlement and entered final judgment.
According to class counsel, Godiva recently directed Kroll "to
conduct several additional rounds of review" of class claims that
had already been validated. Godiva's plan, according to class
counsel, is to "substantially reduce the number of claims that
Kroll previously represented were valid."
Faruqi and the Wand firm said these post-settlement audits appeared
to contravene the settlement agreement Preska incorporated in her
order approving the deal. They asked Preska to hold a status
conference to figure out, among other things, whether class members
whose previously accepted claims have since been invalidated in
these post-settlement audits should have a chance to respond or
whether, more substantively, the entire claims process should be
redone, possibly with a different administrator.
Adding to the intrigue: In September, class counsel told Preska
that Godiva had informed them that the company did not have enough
money to pay class members. Godiva, according to the class
counsel's letter to the judge, blamed "the seasonal nature of its
business" and asked for more time to make payments to the class.
Class counsel Timothy Peters of Faruqi and Aubry Wand of the Wand
firm did not respond to my request for comment, but the implication
of their two letters to Preska is clear: Their contention seems to
be that Godiva is attempting to use the post-settlement claims
process to reduce its liability to the class.
Godiva denies it. The company's counsel from Perkins Coie referred
my query to a Godiva spokesperson. He said in an email statement
that the company has begun making payments to class members and
remains committed to paying them "the full amount required by the
settlement."
Godiva said in the statement that it had requested a single
post-settlement review of approved claims after the settlement
administrator "identified a type of fraud." If Kroll conducted
additional post-settlement audits, Godiva said, they were at the
administrator's initiative, as permitted under the settlement
agreement.
"We are thankful the administrator performed this due diligence to
ensure that payments pursuant to the agreement are going toward
valid claimants," Godiva said.
Kroll senior director James Prutsman declined to comment on class
counsel's letters to Preska.
Post-settlement claims audits and challenges are unusual but not
unheard of. Occasionally, both sides realize there's a problem with
the claims administration process and decide to audit claims. Even
more rarely, a party will cite suspicious claims. The most famous
example of that scenario is the ruckus that BP PLC raised after it
settled the Deepwater Horizon oil spill case via a class action.
But BP's challenges arose from allegedly frivolous claims asserted
after the company agreed to an uncapped settlement fund. That's a
very different framework than the Godiva case, in which Godiva's
liability was limited to class members' claims that had already
been submitted and vetted before the settlement was approved.
What's especially notable in the Godiva case is that settlement
approval was premised on the legitimacy of the class process. When
Preska decided to award class counsel a total of $2.85 million in
fees and costs (rather than the $5 million they had requested), she
based that number entirely on the representation that class members
would be paid about $7.5 million for claims that had been
submitted, vetted and validated.
"I asked class action objector Ted Frank of the Hamilton Lincoln
Law Institute about the surprise post-settlement developments in
the Godiva case. He said in an email that it's unusual for a
settlement administrator to conduct post-settlement audits in a
situation in which settlement approval was based on the number of
approved claims. (And in which the claims administrator had already
rejected nearly 40% of the submitted claims.) It's also rare, Frank
said, for class counsel to ask a judge to get involved in the
post-settlement claims administration process."
As of Friday afternoon, the Godiva docket did not show any response
from Preska to the class counsel's request for a status conference.
[GN]
GOLD COAST FEED: Arostica Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gold Coast Feed, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Miguel A. Arostica, Yansey B.
Camellon, Yandiert Grillo, Roberto Mendez, Lazaro Pozo, Licier J.
Velasquez, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
individuals v. Gold Coast Feed, LLC also known as: Gold Coast Feed
& Supply also known as: Gold Coast Feed & Nutrition; Wep Retail
Holdings, LLC, Case No. 9:22-cv-81461-WM (S.D. Fla., Sept. 20,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Gold Coast Feed -- https://gcfo.coth.com/ -- is the official feed
and bedding supplier of Wellington International, providing
services year-round and during the Winter Equestrian Festival.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
2655 S. LeJeune Road, Suite 804
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (305) 448-9292
Fax: (786) 309-9978
Email: em@eddymarbanlaw.com
- and -
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Fax: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel S. Rosenbaum, Esq.
ROSENBAUM PLLC
250 Australian Avenue South, 5th Floor
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 653-2900
Fax: (561) 820-2542
Email: drosenbaum@rosenbaumpllc.com
GREEN ACRES NURSERY: Vega-Felix Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Green Acres Nursery &
Supply LLC, et al. The case is styled as Adilene Vega-Felix, on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated
and of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private
Attorneys General Act v. Green Acres Nursery & Supply LLC, Does
1-100, Case No. 34-2022-00327142-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Sept. 22, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Green Acres Nursery & Supply -- https://idiggreenacres.com/ --
specialize in selling high quality trees, shrubs, annuals,
perennials, fruit & vegetables, along with soils, fertilizers and
garden supply.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 818-265-1020
Fax: 818-265-1021
Email: edwin@calljustice.com
H&M HENNES: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Business Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
TheFashionLaw.com published that H&M is facing another class action
lawsuit over its marketing of fast-fashion apparel and accessories
as sustainable. According to the complaint that they filed in a
federal court in Missouri on November 3, Abraham Lizama and Marc
Doten (the "plaintiffs") allege that H&M has engaged in "unlawful,
unfair, deceptive, and misleading business practices" by way of the
marketing and sale of its "self-proclaimed sustainable clothing
line called the 'Conscious Choice' Collection." While products in
this collection are not "sustainable" or "environmentally
friendly," the plaintiffs claim that the Swedish apparel giant
markets them as such, thereby, running afoul of various states'
laws, including those in California and Missouri.
Setting the stage in their complaint (and mirroring similar claims
made in other sustainable marketing-focused complaints filed over
the past couple of years, in particular), Lizama and Doten claim
that "in recent years, consumers have become significantly more
aware of and sensitive to the impact of clothing and household
products on the environment."
Consumers are "seeking out and willing to pay a premium for
products that are responsibly made, including products that will
not negatively affect the environment," the plaintiffs state,
asserting that "as a result, demand has increased for 'green'
products that are sustainable and environmentally friendly."
"In response to consumers' desire for more sustainable and
environmentally friendly clothing products," and knowing the
pricing power that comes with marketing products as such, Lizama
and Doten allege that "many companies" - including H&M - "greenwash
their products by deceptively claiming that their clothing is made
from materials that are more sustainable and environmentally
friendly." Specifically, they assert that H&M "markets and labels
products [as] 'Conscious Choice'" even though they are "not made
from sustainable and environmentally friendly materials."
H&M further pushes its "false" sustainability narrative, the
plaintiffs claim, by way of green-hued hangtags; statements on its
website about its supposed sustainability credentials; and
"marketing, advertisements, and social media" campaign that "center
around 'green' imagery of Conscious-clad models surrounded by lots
of grass and plush green plants."
Against this background, H&M's "sustainability" marketing and
labeling - which it allegedly uses to "increase profits and to gain
an advantage over its lawfully acting competitors" - serves to
"deceive consumers" like the plaintiffs, who argue that they would
not have bought the "Conscious Choice" products had they known that
they were "not made from sustainable and/or environment-friendly
materials." Or if they did buy them, they would have opted to pay
"a substantially reduced price."
Price Premium Claims
Since they "reasonably" relied on H&M's marketing and paid a
premium as a direct result of its "misrepresentations," the
plaintiffs argue that they - and other class members - "have
suffered economic losses and other general and specific damages,
including but not limited to the amounts paid for the products and
premiums paid for the products." The price premium element here is
significant, as it is at the heart of the plaintiff's ability to
show that they have suffered the necessary injury to have the
standing to sue.
Not an untested claim, other plaintiffs have successfully made
similar price premium-based arguments in connection with companies'
allegedly deceptive sustainability marketing campaigns. For
instance, a U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York judge found this summer that a consumer who alleged that
bottling company Niagara made the "false and misleading"
representation that its water bottles are "100% Recyclable"
adequately pled standing for damages (but not injunctive relief) by
alleging that she paid a price premium based on that
misrepresentation.
Before that, a federal district court in Illinois determined in a
case against supermarket chain ALDI that it was enough for the
plaintiff to allege that she paid a premium for what she believed
was a "sustainably sourced" product, thereby, "going beyond merely
alleging that she would not have bought the product absent the
allegedly deceptive practice." To allege injury under a price
premium theory, "a plaintiff must allege not only that the
defendants charged a price premium, but also a 'connection between
the misrepresentation and any harm from, or failure of, the
product," the court stated.
With the foregoing in mind, the plaintiffs claim that H&M engaged
in negligent misrepresentation and fraud, and violated Missouri's
Merchandising Practices Act, California's Unfair and Deceptive Acts
and Practices Law, California's Consumers Legal Remedy Act, and
California's Business and Professions Code, which generally
prohibit parties from engaging in "unlawful, unfair and/or
fraudulent business practices," and making "misleading statements
and fraudulent omissions regarding the quality and characteristics
of its products."
In addition to class action certification, the plaintiffs are
seeking monetary damages (of more than the $5 million class action
threshold), and an order requiring H&M to "immediately cease and
desist from selling its misbranded products in violation of law"
and to undertake a "corrective advertising campaign," among other
things.
A Rising Number of Cases
In the past, brands have been able to market their offerings with
often-vague sustainability-centric buzzwords without pushback from
regulators or consumers, but that is swiftly changing. Lizama and
Doten's lawsuit against H&M marks the second "misleading" marketing
suit that has been lodged against the fast fashion behemoth in the
past several months; it was sued this summer for allegedly using
"falsified [sustainability] information that did not comport with
the underlying data." (That case is still underway in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.)
A growing list of other companies has also been sued on relatively
similar grounds - with mixed results. A case lodged against Canada
Goose in 2020 over "misleading" claims that it is dedicated to
"ethical, responsible, and sustainable sourcing," for instance,
survived a motion to dismiss earlier this year before settling out
of court. Around the same time, Allbirds escaped the false
advertising suit it was facing, with a New York federal court
granting its motion to dismiss this spring.
Ultimately, experts anticipate that regulators and environmental
groups - and seemingly, class action plaintiffs, as well - will
devote increasing attention to the validity of claims made by
companies in regard to their environmental, social, and governance
efforts. "Companies relying on environmental attributes, such as
carbon offsets, to reach climate change goals, and/or that are
making use of allegedly environmentally friendly materials and
marketing such efforts, should be as careful and specific as
possible when making these claims to avoid negative press and/or
regulatory or legal violations," Eversheds Sutherland stated in a
recent note. And in addition to ensuring that claims are accurate
and can be substantiated at the time that they are published,
"Periodic reviews are warranted to keep up with a rapidly evolving
landscape."
A rep for H&M told TFL in response to the lawsuit, "We are taking
the allegations very seriously and are looking into them
thoroughly."
The case is Abraham Lizama, et al., v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP,
4:22-cv-01170 (E.D. Mo.). [GN]
HARD ROCK CAFE: DiBenedetto Sues Over Misleading Business Acts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent DiBenedetto, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Hard Rock Cafe International (USA), Inc.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-06759-JMA-AYS (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 5, 2022), is brought
under the New York General Business Law, Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, and/or New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act as
a result of the Defendant's business acts and practices and/or
omissions that are deceptive, unconscionable, unlawful, misleading
and unfair under the consumer protection statutes.
To participate in Defendant's slots and electronic table games,
customers insert cards, cash, tokens, and/or coins. After a gaming
session, players "cash out" unused credits on the machine. This
results in printing of a voucher that can be redeemed at ticket
redemption kiosks positioned throughout the casino. When the
voucher is inserted, the machine is supposed to dispense the amount
indicated to the customer in legal tender cash and coins.
The ticket redemption machines, however, only pay out whole dollar
amounts. The machine does not dispense coins and does not provide
any meaningful instruction on how to redeem the balance. No signage
is available anywhere in the casino informing players on where to
cash the remaining balance. Instead of paying out the full balance
of these "cash out" tickets and returning the funds to the customer
in full, Defendant converts "cash out" tickets into a partial cash
payment and another "cash out" ticket in lieu of dispensing coins.
Most of these "cash out" tickets for coins are never redeemed.
Many players are unsure of where to redeem their vouchers, and the
ones who are decide it is inconvenient to wait in a line for over
forty minutes to obtain the change they are entitled to. The result
is that players like Plaintiff discard their vouchers or even toss
them into a fountain, the same way people toss actual change into
fountains. The practical impact of not dispensing the amounts
beyond whole dollars lures customers to make more wagers,
especially since they have to trek to far ends of the casino to
receive their change.
The Defendant acted unfairly and deceptively by refusing to return
to slot and electronic table game players like Plaintiff the full
value of their tickets when cashing out at a ticket redemption
machine. The Defendant failed to provide adequate instructions on
how to obtain the balance players were owed and/or imposed
obstacles to the redemption of the vouchers it knew players would
not surmount, resulting in greater revenues.
By paying out only whole dollars and retaining the coins owed to
the player, the Defendant has unlawfully withheld funds that
rightfully belonged to the Plaintiff and other players. By paying
out only whole dollars and dispensing another "cash out" ticket in
lieu of coins, Defendant engaged in a conduct that is intentionally
designed to encourage the customer to make more wagers.
The Defendant's business practices are designed to retain not only
the coins the ticket redemption machines fail to pay out, but
additional funds the customer will add to the machines along with
the "cash out" ticket that should have been paid out in full at the
ticket redemption machine. The Plaintiff and members of the Class
have incurred damages and suffered ascertainable losses of money as
a result of Defendant's actions, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff visited the Hard Rock Casino in Atlantic City between
June and October, 2022, and/or among other times.
Hard Rock Cafe International (USA), Inc. operates and manages the
Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Atlantic City 1000 Boardwalk Atlantic City
NJ 08401-7415, among other Hard Rock casinos in the United
States.[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
- and -
James Chung, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JAMES CHUNG
43-22 216th St
Bayside NY 11361
Phone: (718) 461-8808
Email: jchung_77@msn.com
HARRIS GROUP: Misclassifies Security Officers, Hankins Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY HANKINS and KENNETH WOODS, on their own behalf and on
behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE HARRIS GROUP,
LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and BUFFORD HARRIS,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 6:22-cv-01994-WWB-EJK (M.D.
Fla., Oct. 28, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory
relief and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants violated and continue to
violate the FLSA by misclassifying its security officers as
"independent contractors" and refusing to pay them a livable wage.
The Defendants in this case violated the FLSA by failing to pay
Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated security officers the
statutory time and one-half compensation for all of their hours
worked over 40 each week, says the suit.
Plaintiffs Hankins and Woods worked for the Defendants as security
officers from June 2020 to July 2022 and from August 2020 to August
2021, respectively.
The Harris Group, LLC is an investigations and security services
provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3383
E-mail: kimd@forthepeople.com
HD SUPPLY MANAGEMENT: Santiago Sues Over Untimely Payments
----------------------------------------------------------
George Santiago, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HD Supply Management, Inc.; HD Supply Management LLC;
and HD Supply Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06830 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 8, 2022), is brought against the Defendants violation of the
New York State Labor Law by not paying their Manual Workers on a
timely and weekly basis as required.
The Plaintiff worked in one of Defendants' distribution centers and
was paid bi-weekly at all times. The Plaintiff need to be paid
weekly to keep up with day to day expenses such as housing and
transportation costs, groceries, utilities, and other regular
bills, and in order to obtain the full value of their earned wages
as due. The Defendants violated the NYLL by not paying their Manual
Workers on a timely and weekly basis as required, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as a warehouse associate at one of the
Defendants' distribution centers in Queens, New York.
HD Supply sells materials, supplies, and services to customers in
the maintenance, repair and operations, infrastructure and power
and specialty construction sectors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810,
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 718-669-0714
Email: mgangat@gangatpllc.com
HEALTH ENROLLMENT: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Dec. 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC KETAYI and MIRYAM
KETAYI, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and for the benefit of the general public, v. HEALTH
ENROLLMENT GROUP, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01198-RSH-KSC (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen S. Crawford entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiffs must move for class certification no later
than December 19, 2022.
2. The Defendants' opposition must be filed by February 2,
2023.
3. Any reply brief must be filed by February 22, 2023.
4. Except for the foregoing briefing schedule, the parties
shall fully comply with Civil Local Rule 7.1 in all
respects unless leave to do otherwise is granted by the
District Court.
5. The fact discovery cutoff is continued to April 10, 2023.
6. All other provisions of the operative Scheduling Order
remain in effect.
The parties' stated justifications for amending the Scheduling
Order are all "the foreseeable and avoidable result of the parties'
lack of diligence and cooperation," and as such the parties' joint
request for a continuance does not establish good cause within the
meaning of Rule 16. See Doc. No. 252. At the same time, the Court
understands the realities at play here. Absent continuation of the
due date for filing the class certification motion, plaintiffs are
unlikely to secure the discovery necessary to file their motion.
Thus, the plaintiffs would bear virtually all the prejudice from a
situation not solely of their own making; whereas defendants would
receive a windfall by taking what the Court considers to be an
inordinate amount of time to produce responsive discovery. This
Court finds the avoidance of this situation constitutes good cause
given the public policy favoring full and fair adjudication on the
merits, as opposed to resolving cases through procedural
gamesmanship.
The parties' joint request is accordingly granted, although not
without marked hesitation by the Court given the history of this
case. The Court expressly directs defendants to participate in
discovery without engendering further undue delay. The Court will
not permit any party to thwart the "just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination" of this action.
On September 30, 2022, the Court held a Status Conference with the
parties. At the conclusion of that Status Conference, and based on
the representations of the parties made about the course of
discovery, the Court ordered the parties to submit
a Joint Status Report to "address the parties' positions on
modifying the operative Scheduling Order, including all reasons in
support of any proposed modification."
The parties filed a Joint Status Report on October 6, 2022, and an
Update to that Report on October 19, 2022.
Health Enrollment Group is a company that operates in the Insurance
industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hC5ToAat no extra charge.[CC]
HEAVENLY CIRCLE: McCoy Sues Over Home Health Aide's Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie McCoy, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Heavenly Circle LLC dba Heavenly Circle Home
Care, LLC; Marilyn Vicente; and Elba Rodriguez, Case No.
1:22-cv-01930-CAB (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 27, 2022) seeks all available
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act due to the failure
of the Defendants to pay overtime and other compensation to
Plaintiff and Class members.
The Plaintiff was jointly employed by Defendants as an hourly,
non-exempt home health aide from approximately December 2018 until
June 2022.
Heavenly Circle LLC, dba Heavenly Circle Home Care, LLC, operates a
home care staffing agency of direct care workers for those who need
in-home assistance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
- and -
Peter Contreras, Esq.
CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 787-4878
Facsimile: (614) 957-7515
E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com
HOME PARTNERS: Richmond Sues Over Unlawful Burden-Shifting
----------------------------------------------------------
Frank Richmond, Michael McDermott and Kelley McDermott, each
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOME
PARTNERS HOLDINGS LLC, HP WASHINGTON I LLC, HPA BORROWER 2017-1
LLC, and OPVHHJV LLC, d/b/a PATHLIGHT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, Case No.
3:22-cv-05704-DWC (W.D. Wash., Sept. 21, 2022), is brought against
the Defendants' burden-shifting maintenance and repair provisions
that not only contravene the common law covenants of habitability
and state statutes, but also deceptively and misleadingly suggest
to tenants that their signatures on the lease constitute a waiver
of their right to habitable housing.
Landlord-tenant law is predicated on the relationship it confers
upon the parties to a rental agreement. A pillar of that
relationship is that landlords, not tenants, are responsible for
ensuring they "keep the premises fit for human habitation."
Washington law also provides for landlord remedies in the event the
disrepair has been caused by a tenant's conduct. These mandatory
landlord duties, and the rights they confer on tenants, originated
in common law as the Covenants of Habitability and are codified in
Washington's statutes. Indeed, Washington law imposes duties on
landlords, and those duties are significantly more stringent than
those of the common law.
Nonetheless, under the guise of offering a potential home to own,
the Defendants routinely enter into adhesive form leases that
purport to waive and modify a landlord's duties through several
different lease provisions found in Defendants' adhesion contract
forms. During and at the end of tenancies, Defendants pursue their
tenants for payment of pre-existing or other damage to Defendants'
real and personal property that was not caused by the tenants at
all. Defendants' conduct violates statutory landlord-tenant and
consumer protection laws.
The Defendant Home Partners has included provisions in its
carefully crafted form leases that illegally purport to shift its
maintenance obligations onto tenants, including for situations
where the damage is not caused by the tenant's conduct. Defendants
further disclaim in form leases any obligation to comply with the
Covenants of Habitability, stating "Tenant hereby represents,
warrants and acknowledges that it is leasing the Premises in its
'AS-IS, WHERE-IS, WITH ALL FAULTS' condition, fitness for any
particular purposes, merchantability, habitability or any other
warranty of any kind, nature, or type whatsoever." These lease
provisions are designed to obscure, mislead, and misrepresent the
Defendants' true legal obligations to renters.
As further evidence of an intent to mislead and misrepresent
obligations to renters and to shift the costs of repair onto
tenants, Home Partners represents that as a component of its
lease-to-purchase program, the parties have a "mutual
responsibility to maintain the home," in contrast to the
traditional landlord-tenant relationship, and that this alleged
"mutual responsibility" creates an advantage for the tenant over
the traditional landlord-tenant relationship.
The Defendants fail to disclose, however, that nothing in their
unwieldy, lengthy "Residential Lease Agreement" can abridge a
tenant's rights, nor does the lease create anything other than a
traditional landlord-tenant relationship. The Defendants' "as-is"
and burden shifting repair provisions mislead consumers about their
guaranteed rights and remedies under applicable state law by
misrepresenting to consumers that they, not Defendants, are
required to keep Defendants' properties in reasonable repair. Thus,
in addition to misrepresenting tenants' rights, Defendants' leases
are agreements with tenants that purport to waive or modify the
landlord's duties in direct violation of the law, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs rented a home through the Defendants.
The Defendants collectively own, lease, and manage approximately
17,000 homes in 70 markets located in 32 states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq.
LEMMON LAW FIRM, LLC
P.O. Box 904
15058 River Road
Hahnville, LA 70057
Phone: (985) 783-6783
Fax: (985) 783-1333
Email: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com
alemmon@milberg.com
- and -
Anne T. Regan, Esq.
Lindsey L. Larson, Esq.
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
8050 West 78th Street
Edina, MN 55439
Phone: (952) 941-4005
Email: aregan@hjlawfirm.com
llabellelarson@hjlawfirm.com
- and -
Scott Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
Grossman, PLLC
900 W. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Email: sharris@milberg.com
- and -
Gary Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
Grossman, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
HONOR HOME CARE: Kosnikowski Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Honor Home Care
Services California, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Cynthia
Kosnikowski, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. Honor Home Care Services
California, Inc., Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
CGC22602764 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Nov. 4, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Honor -- https://www.joinhonor.com/ -- provides in-home senior
care, helping older adults in the San Francisco Bay Area continue
to live well at home as they age.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas James Blouw, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
Phone: 858-952-0354
Fax: 858-551-1232
Email: DeBlouw@bamlawca.com
HOSPITALS CORPORATION: Sumpter Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnine Sumpter, individually and for others similarly situated v.
HOSPITALS CORPORATION d/b/a NYC HEALTH+HOSPITALS, Case No.
1:22-cv-08176 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2022), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law
(NYLL).
The Plaintiff and the other workers like her, who worked for, or on
behalf of the Defendant, regularly worked more than 40 hours per
workweek. However, the Plaintiff and the other workers like her
were not paid overtime. Instead, the Defendant misclassified these
workers as independent contractors and paid them the same hourly
rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a
work week. ("straight time for overtime") with no overtime in
violation of the FLSA and the NYLL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a nurse practitioner.
H+H is one of the largest public health care systems in the United
States and operates public hospitals and clinics through New York
City as a public benefit corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
Dana Cimera, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 300-0375
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 352-1100
ILLINOIS MUTUAL LIFE: Lowenberg Files Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Illinois Mutual Life
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Frank Lowenberg,
individually and on behalf of all members of the public similarly
situated v. Illinois Mutual Life Insurance Company, Case No.
4:22-cv-05329-KAW (N.D. Cal., Sept. 20, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
Illinois Mutual -- https://www.illinoismutual.com/ -- is a premier
provider of life insurance, disability insurance, and voluntary
worksite benefits.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary Richard Carlin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP
301 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1550
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: (562) 432-1656
Email: gary@garycarlinlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kathy Jan Huang, Esq.
Gillian Hannah Clow, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD
333 S. Hope Street, 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 576-1123
Fax: (213) 576-1100
Email: kathy.huang@alston.com
gillian.clow@alston.com
ISORAY INC: Franchi Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
--------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Franchi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ISORAY, INC., MICHAEL W. MCCORMICK, ALAN HOFFMANN,
PHILIP J. VITALE, and LORI A. WOODS, Case No. 2022-1011- (Del.
Chancery Ct., Nov. 7, 2022), is brought on behalf of the public
stockholders of Isoray, Inc. against Isoray and the members of
Isoray's Board of Directors (the "Board" or the "Individual
Defendants"), for breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with
the Board's efforts to combine the Company with Viewpoint Molecular
Targeting, Inc. (the "Proposed Transaction").
On September 28, 2022, Isoray issued a press release announcing
that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
September 27, 2022 (as amended, the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant
to which Isoray Acquisition Corp. ("Merger Sub") will be merged
with and into Viewpoint, with Viewpoint continuing as the surviving
entity and becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company and
shares of Viewpoint converting into the right to receive 3.3212
shares of Isoray common stock.
Under the Merger Agreement, Isoray is required to issue
approximately 136,545,112 shares of Isoray common stock to
Viewpoint stockholders (the "Share Issuance"), who would own
approximately 49% of the combined company on a fully diluted basis
if the Proposed Transaction is completed, with current Isoray
stockholders owning the remaining 51%. As a NYSE American listed
company, Isoray is required by NYSE American listing rules to
secure stockholder approval before issuing 20% or more of its
outstanding common stock. Thus, the Proposed Transaction is
contingent upon Isoray stockholders voting to approve the proposed
Share Issuance.
On October 25, 2022, the Company filed a Schedule 14A Preliminary
Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") to, among other things,
recommend that Isoray stockholders vote to approve the Share
Issuance and the change of control resulting from the Proposed
Transaction. The Proxy Statement fails to provide the Company's
shareholders with material information and/or provides them with
materially misleading information thereby rendering the
shareholders unable to make an informed decision on whether to vote
in favor of the Share Issuance and change of control.
Critically, the Proxy Statement completely omits any financial
projections for Isoray or Viewpoint, including the most critical
metric for Isoray stockholders—Isoray's and Viewpoint's free cash
flow projections—relied upon by the Board's financial advisor,
Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. In facilitating the Proposed Transaction and
disseminating the incomplete and misleading Proxy Statement, each
of the defendants breached their fiduciary duties. The special
meeting of stockholders to vote on the Share Issuance and change of
control will soon be scheduled. It is imperative that the material
information that has been omitted from the Proxy Statement is
disclosed to the Company's stockholders prior to the Special
Meeting so they can properly determine whether to vote in favor of
the Share Issuance and change of control. If this material
information is not timely disseminated, Plaintiff and all other
public stockholders of Isoray will suffer the irreparable injury of
an uninformed voting decision and Isoray's public stockholders may
not receive the true value of their investment.
For these reasons, the Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Proposed
Transaction unless and/or until defendants cure their breaches of
fiduciary duty, or, in the event it is consummated, recover damages
resulting from the defendants' violations of their fiduciary
duties, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a continuous stockholder of Isoray.
Isoray is a medical technology company pioneering advanced
treatment applications and devices to deliver targeted internal
radiation treatments for cancers throughout the body.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
LONG LAW, LLC
3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208
Wilmington, DE 19807
Phone: (302) 729-9100
- and -
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
Kelly K. Moran, Esq.
Alexandra E. Eisig, Esq.
ACOCELLI LAW, PLLC
33 Flying Point Road, Suite 131
Southampton, NY 11968
Phone: (631) 204-6187
J & J SNACK FOODS: Vargas Sues to Recover Unpaid, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristy Vargas, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. J & J SNACK FOODS, CORP. and DADDY RAY'S,
INC., jointly and severally, Case No. 4:22-cv-01187 (E.D. Mo., Nov.
8, 2022), is brought arising from the Defendants' willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Missouri's wage laws,
and common law to recover unpaid wages and overtime, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other remedies to which
they may be entitled.
The Defendants automatically deducted 30-minutes from all of their
Production Workers' time records for unpaid meal periods. However,
the Defendants did not provide their Production Workers with
30-minute meal periods. Instead, the Defendants maintained a common
policy and practice of only providing their Production Workers with
20-minute meal periods.
Moreover, the Production Workers spent much of that 20-minute
period walking from their work station to a wash station where they
were required to take off their personal protection equipment
("PPE") and wash their hands before taking their lunch (on the
premises). They were then required to wash their hands and put on
their PPE before walking back to their work stations. The
Defendants' Production Workers were required to return to their
work stations within the allotted 20-minute period or they were
subject to verbal and/or written discipline.
As a result of Defendants' policy and practice, the Production
Workers were denied full, lawful compensation for all their work.
The unpaid 30-minutes was legally compensable and often amounted to
overtime where the time was in addition to the Production Workers'
full-time schedules (i.e., 40 hours per week), says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly
Production Worker at the Defendants' production facility in Moscow
Mills, Missouri from October 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022.
The Defendants own and operate a commercial bakery and distribution
center in Moscow Mills, Missouri, where they produce, sell, and
distribute baked goods to their customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
DONELON, P.C.
4600 Madison, Ste. 810
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 221-7100
Email: brendan@donelonpc.com
- and -
Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
Kathryn E. Milz, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Phone: (248) 355-0300
Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com
kmilz@sommerspc.co
J.G. WENTWORTH: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The J.G. Wentworth
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. The J.G.
Wentworth Company, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09459 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 4,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
JG Wentworth -- https://www.jgwentworth.com/ -- is a financial
services company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
J.M. SMUCKER: Humphrey Sues Over Misleading Label in Pet Food
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Humphrey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-06913 (N.D.
Cal., Nov. 4, 2022), is brought on behalf of herself and similarly
situated consumers who purchased 9Lives-branded pet food, Kibbles
'n Bits-branded pet food, and Meow Mix-branded pet food (the
"Products"), which are misleading labeled as healthful despite
containing titanium dioxide ("TiO2" or the "Additive"), in
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; violation of the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act; violation of California's False
Advertising Law; Fraud; Constructive Fraud; Fraudulent Inducement;
Fraudulent Omission or Concealment; Fraudulent Misrepresentation;
Negligent Misrepresentation; and Quasi Contract / Unjust
Enrichment.
Worse, the packaging of the Defendant's products--which is
essential and integral to delivering the food to consuming
pets--also contain per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"),
which are synthetical chemicals that pose undue health risks
further rendering Defendant's healthful representations false and
misleading. The Defendant has known of the health problems posed by
TiO2 since at least February 2014 when big players in the food
market publicly announced they would no longer use the additive in
products due to health concerns. These announcements have been
widely reported on by several news outlets, including Time
Magazine, CNN, The Guardian, and the Los Angeles Times. Major
retailers of pet food, including retailers that at one time offered
brands by the Defendant, also announced that they would not sell
pet food containing TiO2. The industry announcements were informed
by scientific research concluding that TiO2 is unhealthy and unsafe
for consumption.
Similarly, the Defendant has long known of the health problems
posed by PFAS, which persist and accumulate and are harmful even at
very low levels. PFAS have been shown to have a number of
toxicological effects in laboratory studies as PFAS exposure raises
a host of health effects, including but not limited to various
cancers, liver damage, and immunotoxic effects.
The Defendant employs food scientists who focus on food safety and
nutrition specifically for pet food products, including tracking
industry developments concerning ingredients and additives.
Defendant also employs packaging engineers, scientists, and
managers who focus on pet food products, including assessing
suitability for direct food contact applications. The Defendant
nonetheless consistently makes various misrepresentations
concerning the Products to convince consumers that the Products are
healthful for consumption and do not expose pets to heightened risk
of a host of health effects from consuming the Defendant's
Products. The Defendant knew or should have known that titanium
dioxide is unhealthy and raises health risks from various sources,
including but not limited to information provided by certain of its
major retailers and its food scientists.
Nonetheless the Defendant sells pet food containing TiO2 and PFAS,
abusing the Public's trust and failing to inform consumers of the
implications of consuming the toxins. Instead, the Defendant relies
on the ingredient list, which is provided in tightly woven,
miniscule block print on the back of the Products, which consumers
are unlikely to notice. The Defendant nowhere informs consumers
that the Products also contain PFAS. The inadequate labeling means
that consumers who purchase Defendant's Products are unaware that
they are at heightened risk of a host of health effects stemming
from TiO2 and PFAS.
Based on the Defendant's omissions, a reasonable consumer would
expect that the Products are healthful and can be purchased and
consumed as marketed and sold. However, the Products are not
healthful and pose a significant health risk. Yet, neither before
nor at the time of purchase does the Defendant notify consumers
like the Plaintiff that the Products are not healthful, pose health
risks, and should otherwise be approached with caution, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff has purchased the Products numerous times from her
local Walmart, including as recently as July 2022.
The Defendant is a leading manufacturer, packager, and distributor
of pet food.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Sean L. Litteral, 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
- 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
JEFF & TAMMY: Fair Sues Over failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Teagan Colby Fair, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. JEFF & TAMMY 164, INC., a California
corporation; HARMAN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a Utah corporation; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 22CV403423 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Santa Clara Cty., Sept. 22, 2022), is brought against the
Defendants for California Labor Code violations and unfair business
practices stemming from Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods,
failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain
accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to
timely pay all wages to terminated employees, failure to indemnify
necessary business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate wage
statements.
The Defendants are subject to the California Labor Code, Wage
Orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC"), and the
California Business & Professions Code. Despite these requirements,
throughout the statutory period Defendants maintained a systematic,
company-wide policy and practice of: Failing to pay employees for
all hours worked, including all minimum wages, and overtime wages
in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders;
Failing to provide employees with timely and duty-free meal periods
in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders,
failing to maintain accurate records of all meal periods taken or
missed, and failing to pay an additional hour's pay for each
workday a meal period violation occurred; Failing to authorize and
permit employees to take timely and duty-free rest periods in
compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, and
failing to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a rest
period violation occurred; Failing to indemnify employees for
necessary business expenses incurred; Willfully failing to pay
employees all minimum wages, overtime wages, meal period premium
wages, and rest period premium wages due within the time period
specified by California law when employment terminates; and Failing
to maintain accurate records of the hours that employees worked;
Failing to provide employees with accurate, itemized wage
statements containing all the information required by the
California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in the County of Santa
Clara, State of California, as a team member from November 2021 to
February 2022.
The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry,
business, and establishment within the State of California,
including Santa Clara County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
Enzo Nabiev, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: 213-232-3128
Fax: 213-232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
enzo.nabiev@moonyanglaw.com
JORNS AND ASSOCIATES: Prairie Pointe Files TCPA Suit in D. Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jorns and Associates,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Prairie Pointe Orthodontics,
P.A., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
Jorns and Associates, LLC, John Does 1-10, Case No.
2:22-cv-02451-JWB-GEB (D. Kan., Nov. 4, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Jorns & Associates -- https://www.jornscpa.com/ -- is an industry
leader in assisting businesses with PPP Loan Forgiveness.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard S. Fisk, Esq.
BEAM-WARD, KRUSE, WILSON & FLETES, LLC
8645 College Boulevard, Suite 250
Overland Park, KS 66210-1871
Phone: (913) 339-6888
Fax: (913) 339-9653
Email: rfisk@bkwflaw.com
JUDSON ENTERPRISES: Carpenter Files TCPA Suit in D. Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Judson Enterprises,
Inc. The case is styled as Corey Carpenter, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Judson Enterprises, Inc. doing
business as: K-Designers, Case No. 0:22-cv-02858-ECT-LIB (D. Minn.,
Nov. 8, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Judson Enterprises, Inc. doing business as K-Designers --
https://www.k-designers.com/ -- provide home remodeling, new
windows, siding, entry doors, walk-in tubs, gutters, and bathroom
remodeling services in 17 states across the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J Lyons, Jr., Esq.
CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
367 Commerce Court
Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
Phone: (651) 770-9707
Fax: (651) 704-0907
Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com
KANDLE DINING SERVICES: Bodi Files FLSA Suit in D. Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kandle Dining
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Alaina Bodi, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kandle Dining
Services, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02491-DDD-KLM (D. Colo., Sept. 23,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Overtime Wage Violation.
Kandle Dining Services -- https://kandledining.com/ -- is a partner
in dining services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David H. Miller, Esq.
SAWAYA LAW FIRM
1600 North Ogden Street
Denver, CO 80218
Phone: (303) 839-1650
Fax: (303) 720-1650
Email: dhmiller@sawayalaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ryan Paul Lessmann, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS PC
950 17th Street, Suite 2600
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 892-0404
Fax: (303) 892-5575
Email: Ryan.Lessmann@jacksonlewis.com
KEVIN STITT: James Files Suit in D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kevin Stitt, et al.
The case is styled as Greg James, a resident taxpayer of The State
of Oklahoma and others similarly situated v. Kevin Stitt, in his
official capacity as governor of the State of Oklahoma with
"supreme executive authority" granted by art 6 2 of the Oklahoma
constitution; John M O'conner, in his official capacity as attorney
general of Oklahoma and the chief law officer of Oklahoma, Case No.
CJ-2022-5436 (D. Okla., Nov. 4, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Civil Relief More Than $10,000."
Kevin Stitt -- https://oklahoma.gov/governor.html -- is an American
businessman and politician serving as the 28th governor of
Oklahoma.[BN]
KEYBANK NATIONAL: Martin Sues Over Failure to Protect PII
---------------------------------------------------------
Karen and Michael Martin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, KEYCORP, and
OVERBY-SEAWELL COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-01346-RJC (W.D. Pa., Sept.
20, 2022), is brought on behalf of consumers that suffered, and
continue to suffer, injuries as a direct result of the Defendants'
conscious failure to take adequate and reasonable measures to
protect their computer systems, which contained highly sensitive,
personally identifiable information of its customers, which
included customer names, mortgage property addresses, mortgage
account numbers, mortgage account information, phone numbers,
property information, the first eight digits of a customer's Social
Security number, insurance policy numbers, and insurance
information (collectively, "PII").
KeyBank claims on its website that "your security and privacy are
our highest priorities." However, despite this claim, on August 4,
2022, KeyBank was contacted by one of the company's third-party
vendors, OSC that an unauthorized external party had gained remote
access to OSC's network and, on July 5, 2022, acquired certain
information from a number of OSC clients, including PII of KeyBank
clients (the "Data Breach").
The harm resulting from a data breach such as this Data Breach
manifests in a number of ways, including identity theft and
financial fraud, and the exposure of a person's PII through a data
breach ensures that such person will be at a substantially
increased and certainly impending risk of identity theft crimes
compared to the rest of the population, potentially for the rest of
their lives. Mitigating that risk – to the extent it is even
possible to do so – requires individuals to devote significant
time and money to closely monitor their credit, financial accounts,
health records, and email accounts, and take a number of additional
prophylactic measures.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action for the Defendants' failure
to comply with industry and government regulatory standards to
protect information systems that contain PII and Defendants'
failure to provide adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other Class
Members that their PII had been compromised in the Data Breach. As
a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' inadequate data
security, and its breach of its duty to handle PII with reasonable
care, the Plaintiffs and Class Members' PII has been accessed by
hackers and exposed to an untold number of unauthorized
individuals, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs refinanced their mortgage with KeyBank in June
2019.
KeyBank originates and periodically sells commercial and
residential mortgage loans but continues to service those loans for
the buyers of those mortgages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
1575 McFarland Road, Suite 305
Pittsburgh, PA 15216
Phone: (412) 391-5164
Facsimile: (412) 471-1033
Email: yateslaw@aol.com
- and -
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Carey Alexander, Esq.
Ethan Binder, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Phone: (212)223-6444
Facsimile: (212)-233-6334
Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
calexander@scott-scott.com
ebinder@scott-scott.com
KIA AMERICA: Henry Files Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kia America, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Lauren Henry, Lauren Hickman, Kathy Coke,
Gerald Smith, Devon McClellan, Lauren Hernandez, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc.,
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc., Fictitious Kia Defendants,
A-C, Fictitious Hyundai Defendants A-C, Case No.
8:22-cv-01729-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal., Sept. 21, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
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:
Alison M Bernal, Esq.
Nye Stirling Hale Miller and Sweet LLP
33 West Mission Street Suite 201
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone: (805) 963-2345
Fax: (805) 284-9590
Email: alison@nshmlaw.com
- and -
Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
1109 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: (610) 200-0581
Fax: (610) 421-1326
Email: Mds@sstriallawyers.com
KIA AMERICA: McQuarrie Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kia America, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Stephanie McQuarrie, Kaitlynn Marchione,
Omar Becerra, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc., Hyundai Motor America,
Case No. 8:22-cv-01721-JWH-KES (C.D. Cal., Sept. 21, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability for
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Kia America, Inc. -- http://www.kiamedia.com/-- provides a wide
range of cars that meet your lifestyle. Browse our luxury or sports
sedans, hybrids, electric cars, SUVs & hatchbacks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Travis R Eagan, Esq.
Jonathan A. Michaels, Esq.
MLG APLC
600 Anton Blvd Suite 1240
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (949) 304-1297
Email: teagan@defectattorney.com
jmichaels@defectattorney.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Kate Spelman, Esq.
JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
515 South Flower Street Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2246
Phone: (213) 239-5100
Fax: (213) 239-5199
Email: KSpelman@jenner.com
KIMCO FACILITY: Holybee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kimco Facility
Services LLC, et al. The case is styled as Christina Holybee, an
individual on behalf of herself and all similarly situated v. Kimco
Facility Services LLC, Does 1-10, Case No.
34-2022-00327173-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept.
22, 2022).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Kimco Facility Services -- https://kimcoserv.com/ -- provide
essential facility services that deliver healthy operations to
businesses through scalable solutions customized to meet
client-specific requirements.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George Stephen Azadian, Esq.
AZADIAN LAW GROUP, PC
790 E Colorado Blvd., Fl. 9
Pasadena, CA 91101-2193
Phone: 626-449-4944
Fax: 626-628-1722
Email: george@azadianlawgroup.com
KIND LLC: Faces Guerra Suit Over Deceptive Snack Food Labels
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS GUERRA, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general
public, and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIND, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-06654 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2022) seeks
redress for Defendant's unlawful and deceptive practices in
labeling and marketing of the KIND brand nut bars, cereals,
oatmeal, snack mixes, and other products, which make protein claims
on the front of the product packages while omitting a statement of
the corrected amount of protein from the Nutrition Facts Panel, in
violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's prominent protein
claims on the front of the package while omitting the statement of
the corrected amount of protein per serving expressed as a %DV in
the NFP, is likely to mislead reasonable consumers. Consumers,
including Plaintiff, reasonably expect that Defendant's products
will actually provide nutritionally the full amount of protein per
serving claimed on the front of the package and stated in the
protein quantity section of the NFP, i.e., that the products
contain high quality proteins. But Defendant's products do not do
so and instead contain low quality proteins. Had Defendant included
a statement of the corrected amount of protein per serving in the
NFP, as it was required to do under the law, it would have revealed
that the product contains low quality proteins, says the suit.
Kind LLC, stylized as KIND, is a snack food company based in New
York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 639-9090
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
marie@gutridesafier.com
hayley@gutridesafier.com
KSF ACQUISITION: McCracken Sues Over Deceptive Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah McCracken, individually and on behalf of all others situated
v. KSF ACQUISITION CORPORATION, Case No. 5:22-cv-01666-SB-SHK (C.D.
Cal., Sept. 21, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for the
misleading and deceptive advertising of its SlimFast meal
replacement products (the "SlimFast Products"), in violation of
California's strong consumer protection and false advertising law,
including California's False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition
Law, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
Over the last two decades, SlimFast has advertised over forty of
their meal replacement products as having been clinically proven to
cause and maintain weight loss. In an effort to deceitfully "prove"
this, SlimFast's website points to fifty-one studies published
between 1999 and 2010 that supposedly prove that SlimFast Products
cause and maintain weight loss. However, SlimFast's studies only
demonstrate that SlimFast Products lead to weight loss if consumed
with a low-calorie diet. No such clinical studies have been
conducted regarding the effectiveness of SlimFast Products in
"losing weight" or "keeping it off" independently of a low-calorie
diet.
In the advertising of the SlimFast Products, the Company
intentionally overgeneralizes the results gathered from the studies
and disingenuously leads consumers to believe that the Company's
clinical trials ensuring weight loss encompass the SlimFast
products. This deceptive advertising was recently brought to the
attention of the National Advertising Division ("NAD"). NAD is a
body within the independent non-profit BBB National Programs, which
monitors and oversees the truthfulness and accuracy of advertising
across United States corporations.
In September 2021, the NAD recommended that Defendant's Clinically
Proven Claim was unsubstantiated and should be discontinued. NAD
stated that even though "the low-calorie feature of the SlimFast
plan is clinically tested," the claim is "not limited to consuming
a low-calorie diet." In other words, although consumers may lose
weight through consuming a low-calorie diet (i.e., the Slim Fast
plan), there are no clinical studies that prove that SlimFast's
products result in weight loss—despite its advertising to the
contrary. Accordingly, the NAD concluded that the message SlimFast
conveyed through its Clinically Proven Claim was false and
misleading.
By deceptively misrepresenting the effectiveness of its products,
SlimFast has misled consumers into purchasing SlimFast Products and
believing they were going to lose weight by doing so, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the SlimFast Original Meal Replacement
Shake Mix product from Walmart and Stater Bros.
SlimFast is an American company headquartered in Palm Beach
Gardens, Florida that manufactures, markets, and distributes meal
replacement products, including protein bars, smoothies, and
snacks..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert C Schubert, Esq.
Amber L Schubert, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 788-4220
Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
Email: rschubert@sjk.law
aschubert@sjk.law
LANDMARK RECOVERY: Hale Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maranda Hale, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
LANDMARK RECOVERY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC, LANDMARK RECOVERY OF
OHIO, LLC, LANDMARK RECOVERY MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-02011 (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 7, 2022), is brought against the
Defendants for their collective failure to pay employees overtime
wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated direct care employees
regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, or they would have
worked more than 40 hours per week if their hours were not reduced
by the meal break deduction, but they were not paid
one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for all of hours
worked over 40 as a result of Defendants' daily deduction of 30
minutes for meal breaks that were not taken or that were otherwise
interrupted by work, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from January 2022
until May 25, 2022.
Recovery Development Company LLC is a foreign limited liability
company that operates and conducts substantial business activities
in Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126
Columbus, OH 43220
Phone: 614-949-1181
Fax: 614-386-9964
Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
LEXINGTON COUNTY HEALTH: Luce Files Suit in D. South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lexington County
Health Services District, Inc., et al. The case is styled as
William M. Luce, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
natural persons v. Lexington County Health Services District, Inc.,
Brian D. Smith, Lynn Coggins, in both their official and individual
capacities, Case No. 3:22-cv-03898-MGL (D.S.C., Nov. 4, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Right for the Civil
Rights Act.
Lexington Medical Center -- https://www.lexmed.com/ -- is a
hospital serving Columbia, Lexington, and the rest of the South
Carolina Midlands area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Imgrund, Esq.
Bryan Draper Caskey, Esq.
CASKEY AND IMGRUND LLC
1116 Blanding Street, Suite 2A
Columbia, SC 29201
Phone: (803) 708-3252
Fax: (803) 708-3170
Email: alex@cilawsc.com
bryan@cilawsc.com
- and -
Jenkins McMillan Mann, Esq.
Shaun C. Blake, Esq.
ROGERS LEWIS JACKSON MANN AND QUINN LLC
1901 Main Street, Suite 1200
Columbia, SC 29201
Phone: (803) 256-1268
Fax: (803) 252-3653
Email: jmann@rogerslewis.com
sblake@rogerslewis.com
LINCARE INC: B.B. Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as B.B., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lincare Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-00670 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for Western District of
Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for Middle District of Florida
on Nov. 9, 2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02550-KKM-AEP to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Dispute.
Lincare Holdings Inc. -- https://www.lincare.com/ -- is a provider
of oxygen and other respiratory therapy services to patients in the
home.[BN]
The Plaintiffs is represented by:
Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
Lucy McShane, Esq.
MCSHANE & BRADY LLC
1656 Washington Street, Suite 140
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: (816) 888-8010
Fax: (816) 332-6295
Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brisa Ileana Izaguirre Wolfe, Esq.
Amy D. Fitts, Esq.
POLSINELLI - KCMO
900 W. 48th Place
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 218-1208
Fax: (816) 753-1536
Email: bwolfe@polsinelli.com
afitts@polsinelli.com
LIVING ROOM RESTAURANT: Inoa-Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Sayuri Inoa-Martinez, Leonel Feng, Josmael Pichardi Lede and David
Valecillo, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated as Class Representatives v. Living Room Restaurant and
Lounge 2.0 Inc., Living Room Restaurant and Lounge, Inc., Ali
Zulqurnain, and Julia Malkova, Case No. 1:22-cv-06722 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 4, 2022), is brought against the Defendants' violations of the
minimum wage, overtime and tip retention provisions of the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the minimum wage, overtime, spread of
hours, tip retention and hiring and wage notice provisions of New
York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs were employed as servers by Defendants but were not
paid their lawfully owed wages and tips. The Plaintiffs were
rarely, if ever, paid any wages and only ever received a portion of
the tips to which they were entitled. When certain of the
Plaintiffs sought legal assistance to remedy these and other legal
violations, they were threatened by Defendants and fired.
The Defendants' employees, including the Plaintiffs, routinely
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, i.e. "overtime hours," and
over a spread of hours exceeding 10 hours in a day. During the
course of their respective periods of employment, the Plaintiffs
came to understand that they, and all other servers employed by the
Defendants, were generally not paid any hourly wages but only ever
received a portion of their earned gratuities, sometimes as
"points" or a percentage of the "tip pool."
The Defendants only paid the Plaintiffs a portion of their tips,
failed to pay them any additional amount as wages and failed to
provide the required written notice for a tip credit allowance, the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs at least the then
applicable federal and state minimum wages for each hour worked. To
the extent that the Defendants used the Plaintiffs' earned
gratuities to pay them an undisclosed hourly wage, the Defendants
thereby stole the Plaintiffs' earned gratuities. The Defendants
failed to pay the Plaintiffs and their other employees at a rate of
one and one half their regular hourly rate of pay for every hour
worked over 40 in a workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed as servers by the Defendants at their
upscale restaurant and lounge located in Brooklyn, New York.
The Defendants own and operate the Living Room which is a
profitable restaurant, bar, lounge and catering business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert McCreanor, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT D. MCCREANOR, P.L.L.C.
245 Saw Mill River Road, Suite 106
Hawthorne, NY 10532
Phone: (845) 202-1833
Email: rmccreanor@rdmclegal.com
LSL INDUSTRIES: Citizens Insurance Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LSL Industries, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Citizens Insurance Company of America,
Hanover Insurance Company v. LSL Industries, Inc. Vanessa Ingram
Sanchez, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No.
1:22-cv-06247 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 9, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.
LSL Industries, Inc., doing business as LSL Healthcare --
https://www.lslhealthcare.com/ -- stands for quality and dependable
service and offer a wide variety of hospital supplies, medical
devices and disposable kits.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey Alan Goldwater, Esq.
Kelly M. Ognibene, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
550 West Adams, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60661
Phone: (312) 345-1718
Email: jeffrey.goldwater@lewisbrisbois.com
kelly.ognibene@lewisbrisbois.com
MASKCARA INDUSTRIES: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Maskcara Industries, Inc. The
case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Maskcara
Industries, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09498 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Maskcara offers makeup that is gluten, paraben, and cruelty
free.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
MASSACHUSETTS: Union Sues Over Canceled Civil Service Exams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Manzoni and Lara Salahi at nbcboston.com reports that the
Boston Firefighters Union is suing the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts over what it is calling an "urgent public safety
threat," after the state recently canceled civil service exams
indefinitely.
The civil service exams determine critical promotions for
lieutenants, captains, and other leadership roles within agencies.
The Massachusetts Civil Service Commission suspended the exams over
a 2009 lawsuit brought forward by the police unions claiming the
exams discriminate against minority employees.
"It's directly detrimental to public safety, which is our number
one concern," said Dillon. "As firefighters, we rely critically on
skilled and capable officers on the ground."
According to the Boston Firefighters Union, the claims by the
police lawsuit do not apply to the firefighters exam. The union has
also filed a class action lawsuit in Superior Court.
"These Boston firefighters and firefighters across the state, who
dedicated countless hours away from their family, countless hours
of personal time for upwards of a year and a half to prepare for
these exams, suddenly had the rug pulled out from underneath
them."
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu has said that she supports the
firefighters union.
Union leaders plan to meet with the Massachusetts Civil Service
Commission. [GN]
MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Kelly Suit Transferred to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Kelly, Eryn Learned, Kerry Wano, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The
McClatchy Company, LLC, Case No. 2:21-CV-01960 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for Central District of California on Nov. 8,
2022.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-mc-00026-JWH-KES to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
The McClatchy Company -- https://www.mcclatchy.com/ -- commonly
referred to as simply McClatchy, is an American publishing company
incorporated under Delaware's General Corporation Law and based in
Sacramento, California.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Amy L. Pierce, Esq.
Jeffrey Eric Schultz, Esq.
John S. Poulos, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD AND SMITH LLP
2020 West El Camino Avenue Suite 700
Sacramento, CA 95833
Phone: (916) 646-8210
Fax: (916) 564-5444
Email: amy.pierce@pillsburylaw.com
jeffrey.schultz@lewisbrisbois.com
john.poulos@lewisbrisbois.com
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. 7-Eleven
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as 7-Eleven, Inc. et al., v.
Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-05746 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 21,
2013 ), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The 7-Eleven case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
7-Eleven is a multinational chain of retail convenience stores,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. The chain was founded in 1927 as an
ice house storefront in Dallas. It was named Tote'm Stores between
1928 and 1946.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Tpsmm4at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. BKS Inc
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BKS, Inc. et al v. Visa,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-02264 (E.D.N.Y., Filed June 1, 2009),
the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The BKS Inc suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3fUI76Vat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Broadway
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Broadway Grill, Inc. v.
Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-04362 (E.D.N.Y., Filed July 26,
2017), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Broadway suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Broadway Grill is a private company. The company currently
specializes in the Restaurants area.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3WXYHU4at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Broadway
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Broadway Grill, Inc. v.
Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-04362 (E.D.N.Y., Filed July 26,
2017), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants’ acceptance of such payment cards.
The Broadway case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Aap3IEat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Broken Ground
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Broken Ground, Inc., v.
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05082 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26,
2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Broken suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3US4Jnaat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Camp Grounds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Camp Grounds Coffee, LLC,
et al., v. Visa, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03401 (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed June 16, 2021), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an
order denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Camp Grounds suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3g2Pfhxat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. CenturyLink
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CenturyLink
Communications, LLC et al v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-06318 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 7, 2019), the Hon. Judge Margo
K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The CenturyLink suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3fW2Jf5at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Cetta Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Cetta, Inc. v.
Visa U.S.A. Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-01831 (E.D.N.Y., Filed April 14,
2006), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Cetta Inc. case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tmFA8Hat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Connecticut Food
Association, Inc., v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05880
(E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 14, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie
entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Connecticut case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
The Connecticut Food Association is the state trade association
that conducts programs in public affairs, food safety, research,
and education.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hDMkfLat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Dunhill
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dunhill Asset Services V
LLC v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03791 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Aug. 19, 2020), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order
denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Dunhill case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Dunhill is a wealth management firm that provides extensive and
bespoke financial planning and investment services.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hG46iwat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. E-Z Mart
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. et
al v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-05352 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Sept. 30, 2013), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order
denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The E-Z Mart suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UzWDQCat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Fairmont
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fairmont Orthopedics &
Sports Medicine, PA, v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05076
(E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie
entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Fairmont case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Fairmont treats injuries and diseases of the knee, hip, back,
shoulder, hand and foots.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3WTNWC5vat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. GES Bakery
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as G.E.S. Bakery, Inc. v.
Visa USA, Inc, Case No. 1:05-cv-05879 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 14,
2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants’ acceptance of such payment cards.
The G.E.S. case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GaKmgPat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. GrubHub
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GrubHub Holdings Inc. et
al., v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06555 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Nov. 20, 2019), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order
denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Grubhub case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Grubhub is an American online and mobile prepared food ordering and
delivery platform. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois and
was founded in 2004.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3fWJMJcat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Harris
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Harris Stationers, Inc. v.
VISA International Service Association, Inc., Case No.
1:05-cv-05868 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 14, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo
K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Harris case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TrZz05at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Hertz Corp
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hertz Corporation, et al.,
v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-03531 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
June 13, 2017), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order
denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Hertz suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Hertz is an American car rental company based in Estero, Florida.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TuV30Xat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Hy-Vee, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hy-Vee, Inc. v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-03925 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug.
16, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Hy-Vee case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3DZCw7fat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Hyman
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hyman v. VISA
International Service Association, Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05866
(E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 15, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie
entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Hyman suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Visa International Service Association owns and operates retail
electronic payments network worldwide.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3A8DFboat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Jax Dux
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jax Dux & Bux, LLC v. Visa
U.S.A. Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-01830 (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed April 14, 2006), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an
order denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Jax Dux case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3WZi0MPat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Jetro Holding
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jetro Holding, Inc., et
al., v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04520 (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed Sept. 23, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an
order denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Jetro case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Jetro operates as a holding company. The Company, through its
subsidiaries, offers beverages, dry groceries, tobacco products,
baking ingredients, condiments and dressings, frozen foods, general
merchandise, restaurant supplies, disposables, food storage
containers, and health and beauty care products.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Uy80Iyat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. JGSA, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JGSA, Inc. v. Visa USA,
Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05885 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 14, 2005), the
Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The JGSA case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3g2r8ztat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Lanning
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lanning, et al., v. Visa,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02360 (E.D.N.Y., Filed April 28,
2021), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Lanning suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3O1C8tFat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. LDC, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LDC, Inc. v. Visa USA,
Inc, Case No. 1:05-cv-05871 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 14, 2005), the
Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The LDC suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GfFwPLat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. MTA
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, et al., v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-04256 (E.D.N.Y., Filed July 23, 2019), the Hon. Judge
Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Metropolitan Transportation suit is consolidated in MDL 1720
RE: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation. The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Metropolitan Transportation Authority is a public benefit
corporation responsible for public transportation in the New York
City metropolitan area of the U.S. state of New York.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ErAHRWat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. NGA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as National Grocers
Association (NGA), et al., v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-05207 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 14, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo
K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The NGA case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
NGA is the national trade association representing the retail and
wholesale grocers.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UzOFXIat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. NuCity
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NuCity Publications, Inc.
v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05075 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct.
26, 2005), Case No. 1:05-cv-05076 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26, 2005),
the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The NuCity case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
NuCity primarily operates in the newspapers, publishing and
printing business.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3O7qsFKat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Old Jericho
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Old Jericho Enterprise,
Inc., et al., v. Visa, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02394
(E.D.N.Y., Filed May 29, 2020), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie
entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Old Jericho case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ErbwPrat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Pizzabov
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pizzabov, Inc. et. al. v.
Visa International Service Association et. al., Case No.
2:20-cv-01517 (E.D.N.Y., Filed March 23, 2020), the Hon. Judge
Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Pizzabov case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Visa International Service Association owns and operates retail
electronic payments network worldwide.f
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EsuhCfat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Publix
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Publix Supermarkets, Inc.
v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04677 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Oct. 04, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order
denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Publix case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Publix is an employee-owned American supermarket chain
headquartered in Lakeland, Florida.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UvLDDPat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. QVC Inc.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as QVC, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A.
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00592 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Feb. 22,
2007), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The QVC suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
QVC is an American free-to-air television network, and flagship
shopping channel specializing in televised home shopping, owned by
Qurate Retail.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UUMfmhat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Rite Aid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rite Aid Corporation, et
al v. Mastercard Incorporated et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00078
(E.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 9, 2006), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie
entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Rite Aid case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Rite Aid Corporation an American drugstore chain based in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ErmJzBat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Rookies Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rookies, Inc. v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05069 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26,
2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Rookies Inc. suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hq89PBat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Seaway Gas
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Seaway Gas & Petroleum,
Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04728 (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed Oct. 6, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an
order denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants’ acceptance of such payment cards.
The Seaway Gas case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GaTrXeat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Spoke
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Spoke v. Visa USA, Inc.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-05881 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 14, 2005 ), the Hon.
Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Spoke case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Ermg0jat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Supervalu
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Supervalu Inc. v. Visa
U.S.A. Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04650 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Sept.
30, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The SuperValu case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
SuperValu was an American wholesaler and retailer of grocery
products.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3NXkNC5at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Tabu Salon
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tabu Salon & Spa, Inc. v.
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05072 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26,
2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Tabu Salon case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3E5nf4Cat no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Wakefern
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wakefern Food Corporation
v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-05765 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Oct. 25, 2006), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order
denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."
The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."
EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."
The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.
The Wakefern suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.
Wakefern is an American company that was founded in 1946 and is
based in Keasbey, New Jersey.
Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tpInOkat no extra charge.[CC]
MEDICAL REVENUE SERVICE: Bergida Files FDCPA Suit in D. Nevada
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Revenue
Service. The case is styled as Rachel Bergida, as parent and legal
guardian of J.B., a minor, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Medical Revenue Service, Case No.
2:22-cv-01873 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Medical Revenue Services help provider groups, hospitals, and
different practices with revenue management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert M. Tzall, Esq.
CONTEMPORARY LEGAL SOLUTIONS PLLC
2551 N Green Valley Pkwy Building C, Suite 303
Henderson, NV 89014
Phone: (702) 666-0233
Email: office@contemporarylegalsolutions.com
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Jamil Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercedes-Benz USA,
LLC. The case is styled as Lena Jamil, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-08130 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.
Mercedes-Benz -- https://www.mbusa.com/en/home -- combines luxury
with performance across the full line of models including luxury
sedans, SUVs, coupes, roadsters, convertibles & more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roy Arie Katriel, Esq.
KATRIEL LAW FIRM PC
2262 Carmel Valley Road Suite 201
Del Mar, CA 92014
Phone: (619) 363-3333
Email: rak@katriellaw.com
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: M274 Engine Problems Cause Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reprots that a Mercedes-Benz M274 engine class
action lawsuit alleges the pistons cause engine problems which lead
to premature engine failure.
The Mercedes M274 engine lawsuit was filed by California plaintiff
Lena Jamil who is the original lessee and owner of a 2016
Mercedes-Benz C300.
According to the class action, she filed the lawsuit on behalf of
California owners or lessees of Mercedes-Benz vehicles equipped
with M274 engines.
According to the M274 lawsuit:
"When Plaintiff's car had logged only approximately 95,000 miles,
Plaintiff encountered the car's engine shuddering, losing power on
the freeway, such that the car eventually would no longer restart
-- an obvious safety risk."
Jamil says she had the vehicle towed to a Mercedes dealer and was
told the M274 engine suffered piston failure in at least one
cylinder and pieces of the piston had penetrated other engine
cylinders.
The class action asserts the plaintiff was told her vehicle would
need the M274 engine replaced at a cost of about $20,000. The
plaintiff says she complained because her Mercedes vehicle "was
only a few years old and with just 95,000 miles," but Mercedes
wouldn't pay for the M274 engine replacement.
The lawsuit says the plaintiff went to an independent mechanic who
agreed to replace the engine with a used long block engine at a
cost of nearly $7,000 plus exchange of the damaged M274 engine.
The plaintiff says she had no choice but to pay the cost because
she needed a vehicle that operated properly.
The Mercedes M274 engine class action lawsuit says the automaker
knows about the alleged engine problems because in October 2022 the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration allegedly opened a
formal investigation.
Mercedes M274 Engine Problems and the Government
The lawsuit says NHTSA "opened a formal investigation of this same
problem after receiving customer complaints about the same and
conducting an initial review."
Additionally, the plaintiff claims the formal investigation was
opened because "the effects of the piston defect plaguing the M274
engine are so significant and pose such a safety concern."
However, NHTSA has not opened a formal investigation into Mercedes
M274 engine problems.
According to federal safety regulators, they received a defect
petition from the owner of a 2015 Mercedes-Benz C300. The
petitioner asked NHTSA to investigate "engine piston damage
attributed to improperly sized wrist pins in the M274 engine found
in the owner's 2015 C300."
The petitioner told NHTSA his 2015 Mercedes C300 M274 engine
suffered a cracked piston and that all Mercedes vehicles with M274
engines should be investigated.
The petitioner also referenced a 2015 technical service bulletin
(TSB LI03.10-P-060916) sent to Mercedes dealerships by the
automaker.
Regulators said the petitioner's vehicle is equipped with a 2.0L
M274 DE20LA engine calibrated to run on 91 Octane or higher
gasoline and contains diamondlike coating (DLC) wrist pins.
"None of the other Mercedes models referenced in the petition
contain this engine configuration. Thus, the scope of the petition
will primarily focus on those vehicles that contain DLC coated
wrist pins like those in the petitioner's vehicle." -- NHTSA
Safety regulators said they would focus on wrist pins found in the
M274 engines in 2015 Mercedes C300 vehicles built prior to March
25, 2015.
NHTSA also noted it had received "seven (7) related Vehicle Owners
Questionnaire (VOQ) reports in certain 2015 C300 vehicles."
The government gave Mercedes until November 22, 2022, to respond to
NHTSA's request for information about the 2015 C300 M274 engines.
Based on what is discovered by regulators, NHTSA will grant or deny
the petition to open a formal Mercedes M274 engine investigation.
The Mercedes-Benz M274 engine class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California: Lena
Jamil v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC.
The plaintiff is represented by The Katriel Law Firm, P.C., and The
Kalfayan Law Firm, APC. [GN]
MESIROW FINANCIAL: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mesirow Financial
Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Mesirow
Financial Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09460 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 4,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mesirow -- https://www.mesirow.com/ -- is an independent financial
services firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
MODELEZ GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Chewing Gums
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marian Johns published through Legal Newsline.com that A class
action lawsuit is alleging the maker of Trident chewing gum is
misleading consumers with false package labeling and
representations.
Kristen Lesorgen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a complaint on Oct. 28 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
Mondelez Global LLC alleging violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Act and other claims.
Lesorgen alleges in her class action that the defendant - who
manufactures labels, markets, and sells Trident brand chewing gum -
is misleading consumers with the packing of its "original flavor"
variety. Specifically, Lesorgen claims the gum's package has a
picture of what appears to be a peppermint leaf on the front label
which leads consumers to believe the gum's taste comes from mint or
peppermint ingredients.
She alleges the gum's back label does not identify any mint or
peppermint ingredients and that its mint taste comes from "natural
and artificial flavor." Lesorgen also alleges the gum's false and
misleading representations result in the product being sold at a
more "premium price" than it would be without the misleading
packaging.
She claims Mondelez had a duty to disclose and give "non-deceptive"
descriptions while marketing its gum product and that it "took
advantage" of consumers' "cognitive shortcuts" made at the point of
sale.
Lesorgen and the class seek monetary relief, trial by jury, and all
other just relief. They are represented by Spencer Sheehan of
Sheehan & Associates PC in Great Neck, New York.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois case
number 3:22-CV-50375 [GN]
MONTEFIORE HEALTH: Does Not Properly Pay Cleaners, Guerrero Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANNY RAMIREZ CRUZ GUERRERO and CRISTOPHER ISMAEL RAMIREZ MOREL, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. MONTEFIORE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. and CSS BUILDING SOLUTIONS INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-09194 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2022) seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, liquidated
damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiffs Guerrero and Morel worked as cleaning workers at
Montefiore and its satellite facilities from November 2017 through
September 16, 2022 and from July 2018 to April 2020, respectively.
Montefiore Health System, Inc. is a health care institution that
operates ten member hospitals and more than two hundred outpatient
ambulatory care sites that provide comprehensive care for ill,
including mentally ill, patients across the Bronx, Westchester, and
the Hudson Valley.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Louis Pechman, Esq.
Vivianna Morales, Esq.
Christian Mercado, Esq.
PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 583-9500
E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
morales@pechmanlaw.com
mercado@pechmanlaw.com
NEW YORK, NY: Seeks More Time to Produce Responsive Docs & Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bridget Capobianco et al.
v. The City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06125-LDH-VMS
(E.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court for an additional time to
produce responsive documents and information in this litigation.
Additionally, the Defendants respectfully request a 90 day
extension of the deadline to complete fact discovery, i.e. from
November 1, 2022 to January 30, 2023.
In addition to the large scope of discovery requested in this
matter, neither Plaintiffs nor the Defendants have conducted
depositions. Defendants are serving their deposition notices this
week.
The Plaintiffs have not yet served deposition notices. Defendants
also request a 90 day extension of time to complete all discovery,
including expert depositions, and file a letter certifying the
close of discovery, i.e. from March 17, 2023 to June 15, 2023.
The Defendants note that in its September 1, 2022 order, the Court
indicated that Defendants may renew their request for an additional
30 days to respond to discovery if appropriate. The Court also
extended the date for the completion of all discovery, from
February 13, 2023 to March 17, 2023, but did not correspondingly
adjust the date for completion of fact discovery from November 1,
2022. The Defendants have reached out to Plaintiffs to request
consent for the proposed extension of time. Plaintiffs have
indicated that they will respond separately to the court on this
request.
New York City is a collection of many neighborhoods scattered among
the city's five boroughs—Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens,
and Staten Island—each exhibiting its own lifestyle.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Ob0tx1at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Cindy A. Singh, Esq.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK
LAW DEPARTMENT
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-3586
E-mail: csingh@law.nyc.gov
NEW YORK: Court OKs Letter Motion to Seal in Flores Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLORES, et al., v.
STANFORD et al., Case No. 7:18-cv-02468 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Vincent L. Briccetti entered an order granting letter motion to
seal.
By letter-motion dated October 21, 2022, the plaintiffs request to
file under seal excerpts from their memorandum of law in support of
their motion for class certification and certain exhibits to the
motion, which contain the identity of a non-involved family member
and proprietary confidential information of a non-party.
The Defendants do not oppose plaintiffs' motion to seal.
The Plaintiffs include CARLOS FLORES, LAWRENCE BARTLEY, EDGARDO
LEBRON, ANTONIO ROMAN, DEMETRIUS BENNETT, L'MANI DELIMA, DONTAE
QUINONES, and SHAROD LOGAN, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated
The Defendants include STANFORD, as Chairwoman of the New York
State Board of Parole; and WALTER W. SMITH, SALLY THOMPSON, JOSEPH
P. CRANGLE, ELLEN E. ALEXANDER, MARC COPPOLA, EDWARD SHARKEY, TANA
AGOSTINI, CHARLES DAVIS, CAROL SHAPIRO, ERIK BERLINER, OTIS CRUSE,
TYCEE DRAKE, and CARYNE DEMOSTHENES, as Commissioners of the New
York State Board of Parole.[CC]
NFL ENTERPRISES: Illegally Tracks Users' Activity, Alex Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JIM ALEX, MARK BOWERS, BOYCE BROWN, STEVEN CHECCHIA, NORMAN CLARK,
RICHARD FUNDERBURK, ADELLA GONZALEZ, CHRISTOPHER HORTON, and
DONAVON THOMPSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NFL ENTERPRISES, LLC and NATIONAL FOOTBALL
LEAGUE, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-09239 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27,
2022) is a class action brought under the Video Privacy Protection
Act on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all persons who subscribed to
official NFL Team Websites operated by or based on Defendants'
guidelines, coding, and content.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have implemented and
utilized tracking methods which track user activity on the Team
Websites and disclose that information to Facebook. In other words,
the Defendants cause users' personally identifiable information and
video watching data to be shared with Facebook, in violation of the
VPPA.
Subscribers of the Team Websites have been harmed as a result of
Defendants' violations of the VPPA. In addition to monetary
damages, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief requiring Defendants to
immediately (i) remove the tracking methods from the Team Websites
or (ii) add, and obtain, the appropriate consent from subscribers,
says the suit.
NFL Enterprises, LLC operates and promotes professional and
semiprofessional clubs and events, including through the
development of websites and mobile apps.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
Gary I. Ishimoto, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
cmaccarone@zlk.com
gishimoto@zlk.com
NFL: Plaintiffs in Antitrust Suit Allowed to File Docs 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 Plaintiffs' Application
Under Local Rule 79-5 to File Documents Under Seal.
The Court ordered that the following documents are to be filed
under seal:
1. 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 sealed Declaration of Kevin Trainer in Support of
Plaintiffs'
4. The unredacted version of the Clarification of and Addendum
to Expert Report of Daniel A. Rascher ISO Motion for Class
Certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Ux5Jxiat no extra charge.[CC]
NISSAN NORTH: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Timing Chains
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brad Anderson of Carscoops.com shared that a certified class-action
lawsuit against Nissan Canada and Nissan North America has received
the go-ahead from a British Columbia court.
The lawsuit stems from allegedly defective timing chains fitted to
roughly 64,000 Nissan vehicles, including Maxima, Altima, Quest,
Pathfinder, Xterra, and Frontier models from the 2004-2010 model
years.
The provincial Court of Appeal in British Columbia found sufficient
evidence for claims of negligent design, misrepresentation,
consumer protection violations, and manufacturing and sales for the
case to go ahead. Auto News notes that the court rejected express
warranty and unjust enrichment claims.
"The evidence is that in the time frame covered by the proposed
class, Nissan vehicles experienced higher-than-expected warranty
claims related to the timing chain mechanisms and issued a series
of Technical Service Bulletins [TSBs] to dealerships, qualified
technicians and Transport Canada, addressing issues with the timing
chain mechanisms," Justice Susan Griffin said.
The plaintiff, Tobias Mueller, will need to amend his complaint to
address its deficiencies, the Court noted. Nissan says Mueller
didn't show "some basis in fact for the assertion that the class
vehicles showed a common defect, or that the defect was
dangerous."
The lawsuit also claims that Nissan's failure to warn new-vehicle
buyers of the issue mispresented that the vehicles were safe. The
suit is seeking compensatory damages for economic loss,
inconvenience, and mental distress, as well as punitive damages.
"The essence of the claim is that the defective part has failed or
will likely fail before the expected lifetime of the product, and
failure of the part could result in significant harm to persons or
property. The claim pleads that the timing chain is an 'integral
part' and an 'essential component' of the vehicles and the
defective part must be replaced to avoid the risk of potential
harm," the Court added.[GN]
OAKBEND MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Higgs Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN HIGGS and ALYSSA WOJNAR on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OAKBEND MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-03740 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 28, 2022) is a
class action arising out of the recent targeted cyberattack against
Defendant that allowed a third party to access Defendant's computer
systems and data, resulting in the compromise of Plaintiffs' highly
sensitive personal information.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiffs and other Class Members that their Private
Information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an
unknown third party or precisely what specific type of information
was accessed.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members have
been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiffs and Class Members must now -- and in
the future -- closely monitor their financial accounts to guard
against identity theft, says the suit.
OakBend Medical Center is an independent, nonprofit hospital in the
Greater Houston area, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: raina@turkestrauss.com
sam@turkestrauss.com
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Bid Tossed as Moot w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re: Omega Healthcare
Investors, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:17-cv-09024-NRB
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered an order
denying the Plaintiff's motion as moot without prejudice to its
refiling should the settlement not be finalized.
The Plaintiff's filed a motion for class certification, appointment
of class representatives, and appointment of class counsel on March
16, 2022. The Defendants filed an opposition brief on August 15,
2022. The Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on September 15, 2022.
While the Plaintiff's motion was pending, on October 25, 2022, the
Plaintiffs informed the Court that the parties have reached an
agreement to settle this class action as to all claims and all
parties and asked the Court to suspend the deadlines in the
December 16, 2021 Revised Case Management Plan and Scheduling
Order.
The court granted the Plaintiff's request to suspend the deadlines
in the scheduling order on October 25, 2022.
Omega Healthcare Investors Inc is a healthcare facility real estate
investment trust that invests in the United States real estate
markets.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3WWlKyuat no extra charge.[CC]
OMNI HOTELS: Joint Bid for Continuation of Briefing Sched Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEAN BEAVER and LAURIE
BEAVER, v. OMNI HOTELS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation; LC BROKERAGE CORP., a Delaware Corporation; LC
INVESTMENT 2010, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; WILLIAM
IMS, an individual; KELLY GINSBERG, an individual; BRETT ALEXANDER
COMBS, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive. Case No.
3:20-cv-00191-AJB-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties agree and jointly
move the Court to extend the time for:
-- the Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and motion for appointment of class co-
counsel from November 7, 2022, to December 7, 2022; and
-- the Plaintiffs' deadline to reply in support of their
motion for class certification and motion for appointment
of class co-counsel from November 14, 2022 to December 14,
2022.
Specifically, the parties seek to amend the briefing schedule as
follows:
a. Current Deadlines:
-- Defendants' Oppositions: November 7, 2022
-- Plaintiffs' Replies: November 14, 2022
b. Proposed Deadlines:
-- Defendants' Oppositions: December 7, 2022
-- Plaintiffs' Replies: December 14, 2022.
Further, the Defendants' response to the motion for class
certification requires analysis and briefing on the suitability for
class treatment of the following seven (7) causes of action:
(1) Breach of Contract;
(2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty;
(3) Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty;
(4) Violations of Bus. & Prof. Code section 17299 et seq.
(UCL);
(5) Violations of 18 U.S.C. section 1962(c) (RICO);
(6) Violations of 18 U.S.C. section 1962(d) (RICO); and
(7) Unjust Enrichment.
Omni Hotels operates hotels and resorts. The Company offers
personalized services, benefits, rewards to guests, and sensational
kids programs to individuals and families.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3E3Jqbyat no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dean and Laurie Beaver are:
Michael J. Reiser, Esq.
Matthew Reiser, Esq.
Isabella Martinez, Esq.
Michael Reiser. Esq.
REISER LAW, P.C.
1475 N. Broadway, Suite 300
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 256-0400
Facsimile: (925) 476-0304
E-mail: michael@reiserlaw.com
matthew@reiserlaw.com
isabella@reiserlaw.com
michaeljr@reiserlaw.com
- and -
Tyler Meade, Esq.
Seena Forouzan, Esq.
THE MEADE FIRM P.C.
12 Funston Ave., Suite A
San Francisco, CA 94129
Telephone: (415) 724-9600
E-mail: tyler@meadefirm.com
seena@meadefirm.com
- and -
Sam Ferguson, Esq.
FERGUSON LAW PC
1816 5th Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 548-9005
E-mail: sam@fergusonlawpc.com
The Attorneys for Defendants Omni Hotels Management Corporation, LC
Brokerage Corp., LC Investment 2010, LLC, Brett Alexander Combs and
William Ims are:
Jeff S. Hood,Esq.
Sean M. Sullivan,Esq.
PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP
12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 720-6300
Facsimile: (619) 235-0398
E-mail: jeff.hood@procopio.com
sean.sullivan@procopio.com
- and -
R. Clay Hoblit,Esq.
Michael D. Hudlow, Jr.,Esq.
Conner R. Jackson,Esq.
HOBLIT DARLING RALLS HERNANDEZ & HUDLOW LLP
802 N. Carancahua, Suite 2000
Corpus Christi, TX 78401-0037
Telephone: (361) 888-9392
Facsimile: (361) 888-9187
E-mail: choblit@hdr-law.com
mhudlow@hdr-law.com
RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Bid to Dismiss Takata/Klapper Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Riot Blockchain, 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
briefing on motions to dismiss filed in the consolidated
Takata/Klapper securities class action was completed in October
2022.
On February 17, 2018, Creighton Takata filed an action asserting
putative class action claims on behalf of the Company's
stockholders in the United District Court for the District of New
Jersey, Takata v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 3:
18-cv-02293.
On April 18, 2018, Joseph J. Klapper, Jr., filed a complaint
against Riot Blockchain, Inc., and certain of its officers and
directors in the United District Court for the District of New
Jersey, Klapper v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 3:
18-cv-8031.
The complaints contained substantially similar allegations,
asserting violations of federal securities laws under Section 10(b)
and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf
of a putative class of stockholders that purchased stock from
November 13, 2017 through February 15, 2018. The complaints alleged
that the Company and certain of its officers and directors made,
caused to be made, or failed to correct false and/or misleading
statements in press releases and public filings regarding its
business plan in connection with its cryptocurrency business. The
complaints request damages in unspecified amounts, costs and fees
of bringing the action, and other unspecified relief.
On November 6, 2018, the court in the Takata action issued an order
consolidating Takata with Klapper into a single putative class
action.
On April 30, 2020, the court granted Defendants' motions to dismiss
the consolidated complaint, which resulted in the dismissal of all
claims without prejudice.
On December 24, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed another amended
complaint.
On April 8, 2022, the court again granted Defendants' motions to
dismiss the operative complaint without prejudice.
On May 27, 2022, Lead Plaintiff filed the third amended
consolidated complaint.
Defendants submitted motions to dismiss on July 18, 2022. Briefing
on the motions to dismiss was completed in October 2022.
Because this litigation is still at this early stage, the Company
cannot reasonably estimate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome
or the magnitude of such an outcome, if any.
Riot Blockchain, Inc. operates as a digital currency company. The
Company focuses on buying cryptocurrency and blockchain
businesses,
as well as supports blockchain technology companies. Riot
Blockchain also maintains its existing biotechnology business
segments. The company is based in Castle Rock, Colorado.
RIZ BAGELS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jimenez Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO HERNANDEZ JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RIZ BAGELS, INC. d/b/a BAGELS
PLUS; MOHAMMED RAHMAN; and IBRAHIM KHAN, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-06818 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2022) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Jimenez was employed by the Defendants as cook and
cleaner.
RIZ BAGELS, INC. d/b/a BAGELS PLUS manufactures bakery products.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
SEKO WORLDWIDE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Joefield Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAHREME JOEFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEKO WORLDWIDE LLC, d/b/a SEKO
LOGISTICS, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-06822 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 8,
2022) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum
wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and
provide accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Joefield was employed by the Defendant as forklift
operator.
SEKO Worldwide LLC provides supply chain solutions. The Company
services include comprehensive transportation, logistics, and
information technology solutions. SEKO serves fashion, retail,
aviation, medical, pharmaceutical, government, and hotel industries
worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Simpson, Esq.
Raya F. Saksouk, Esq.
MENKEN SIMPSON & ROZGER LLP
80 Pine St., 33rd Fl.
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 509-1616
Facsimile: (212) 509-8088
Email: ssimpson@nyemployeelaw.com
rsaksouk@nyemployeelaw.com
SOLAR EDGE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 3, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------
Benzinga.com covered the news that Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies
investors in SolarEdge Technologies, Inc. ("SolarEdge" or the
"Company") of a class action securities lawsuit.
The lawsuit on behalf of SolarEdge investors has been commenced in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. This lawsuit is on behalf of a class consisting of persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of SolarEdge
stock between August 6, 2022, to October 19, 2022, both dates
inclusive. Follow the link below to get more information and be
contacted by a member of Levi & Korsinsky's team:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/solaredge-class-action-submission-form?prid=33612&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to the investors.
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that the defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that:
(i) the designs of the power optimizers, inverters, and components
thereof used to develop SolarEdge's products potentially originated
with and were misappropriated from Ampt LLC ("Ampt"), a competitor
in the renewable energy industry;
(ii) Ampt made claims against the Company for misappropriating
Ampt's patented technology,
(iii) evidentiary support existed for the allegations that
SolarEdge misappropriated certain patents relating to the design
and development of the Company's power optimizers and inverters;
(iv) as a result, SolarEdge faced a threat of regulatory and/or
court action, which could prohibit the import, marketing, and sale
of its power optimizers and inverters, including solar energy
systems that contain such products; which in turn
(v) seriously threatened SolarEdge's ability to monetize on their
solar energy systems that contain the power optimizers and
inverters in the United States and generate revenue; and
(vi) certain revenues generated from the sale of power optimizers
and inverters were potentially based on SolarEdge's unlawful
activities, including the misappropriation of patented designs by
Ampt.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If any investor suffered a loss in
SolarEdge during the relevant timeframe, one has until January 3,
2023, to request that the Court appoint one as lead plaintiff. An
investor's ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that
one serve as a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If any investor is a class member, one may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs
or fees. They can discuss rights with Levi & Korsinsky's legal team
without cost or obligation.
PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/solaredge-class-action-submission-form?prid=33612&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi &
Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases.
Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex
securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our
clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in
ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the
top securities litigation firms in the United States.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-717
www.zlk.com[GN]
SOLARWINDS CORP: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Filed by Shareholders
------------------------------------------------------------------
Derek B. Johnson of SCMagazine.com published that the legal and
regulatory challenges facing SolarWinds -- the IT management
company that was at the heart of a 2020 software supply chain
attack that compromised at least nine federal agencies and 100
private companies -- have changed substantially over the past week
as old threats have diminished and new ones have emerged.
On Oct. 28, the company settled a class-action lawsuit filed last
year by shareholders against SolarWinds, several top executives,
and their two main private equity owners in the wake of the Orion
breach. In the suit, lawyers representing the class argued that the
company had neglected its internal cybersecurity in the years
preceding the breach and misled the public about the state of its
digital security in public filings to the Securities and Exchange
Commission and in media interviews.
The settlement, which lawyers from both sides are working to
process and finalize by Dec. 8, will result in the company paying
$26 million to a class of shareholders who purchased stock during
the affected period.
"The proposed settlement resolves all claims asserted against the
Company and the other named defendants in connection with the class
action litigation and would contain provisions that the settlement
does not constitute an admission, concession, or finding of any
fault, liability, or wrongdoing of any kind by the Company or any
defendant. There can be no assurance that the final settlement
agreement will be executed or that such agreement will be approved
by the court," the company wrote in an SEC filing dated Nov. 3.
At the same time, SolarWinds revealed that it may soon be the
subject of federal regulatory action regarding the breach, as the
company was issued a "Wells Notice" by the SEC the same day
indicating enforcement action may be forthcoming.
"The Wells Notice states that the SEC staff has made a preliminary
determination to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action
against the Company alleging violations of certain provisions of
the U.S. federal securities laws with respect to its cybersecurity
disclosures and public statements, as well as its internal controls
and disclosure controls and procedures," the filing reads.
The notice comes after SEC Commissioner Gary Gensler forecasted
intentions to take a more robust regulatory role scrutinizing the
cybersecurity practices of publicly traded companies as data
breaches, ransomware attacks and other incidents resulted in
billions of dollars of losses and damages to companies and their
customers. The commission has already voted to require investment
advisors and investment companies to report cybersecurity incidents
and major breaches to the agency and is looking to expand that rule
to all publicly traded companies.
SC Media has reached out to a public relations firm representing
SolarWinds for comment on both developments. The company has
consistently denied any wrongdoing and in previous court filings
argued that many of the public filings cited by shareholders in the
lawsuit actually demonstrate that the company was more than
forthcoming about the reality SolarWinds and many other businesses
face around possible cybersecurity breaches while warning
stockholders in multiple ways that an incident could have a
negative effect on the company’s business, stock price and
reputation.
In an earnings call with investors on Nov. 3, CFO Barton Kalsu
mentioned the settlement, saying it would be covered through
insurance and alluded to "ongoing government investigations."
"We are happy to announce that last week, we agreed to settle our
securities class action lawsuit pending in the Western District of
Texas for an amount that will be covered by insurance. While we
still have ongoing government, investigations related to cyber
matters, and we'll continue our approach of transparency and
collaboration, having resolved this litigation will enable the
company to focus on our strategy," Kalsu said, according to a
transcript of the call obtained from Seeking Alpha.
The settlement ends a nearly two-year legal battle between
SolarWinds and its stockholders over whether the company had
inaccurately conveyed its security shortcomings and therefore
improperly boosted its stock price. It also forgoes the need for a
trial and lengthy discovery process that could have led to further
embarrassing revelations.
The lawsuit named a number of individuals and parties -- including
former CEO Kevin Thompson and private equity firms and majority
stockholders Thoma Bravo and Silver Lake Partners -- all of whom
sold millions of dollars in SolarWinds stock shortly before the
breach was disclosed. A judge later refused a request by SolarWinds
to dismiss the lawsuit, but removed Thompson from the list of
defendants after determining that alternative explanations for the
stock sale (namely that it was part of a pre-established plan as
Thompson exited the company and not related to the breach) were at
least plausible.
The lawsuit was closely watched as a test case of sorts for what,
if any, legal liability SolarWinds might face in the wake of one of
the most consequential software supply chain cyberattacks in
history.
The breach, which was eventually attributed to the Russian SVR,
corrupted a legitimate update from SolarWinds Orion software, which
was broadly used within government and private industry. First
discovered by Mandiant (also a victim) the update was downloaded by
at least 18,000 SolarWinds customers, though the campaign is
thought to have been far more targeted in nature, with Biden
administration officials saying last year that it believed that up
to nine federal agencies and 100 companies were actually exploited
through the flaw. [GN]
SONY CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Missing Serial Numbers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Rooke at digitalcameraworld.com reports that a disgruntled
Sony customer has filed a lawsuit against the company after the
serial number fell off his 16-35mm f/2.8 lens. Despite costing
$2,198 / GBP1,999 / AU$2,799, Sony uses cheap stickers to display
the serial number on lenses - and through intense use these can
easily fall off, making the lens invalid for free repairs and
product recalls.
Joseph Musharbash filed the class action lawsuit on November 01 in
California, after being unable to take part in the 2019 product
recall of the Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM lens(opens in new tab). Sony
reported that lenses with a serial number between 1800502 and
1823192 could stop the camera from working properly, and affect the
camera screen display, but offered a free repair to those affected
- so long as your serial number was still fixed to the lens.
Many leading camera brands including Canon and Nikon engrave serial
numbers into their products, so they are less likely to be tampered
with or lost. Even Sigma and Tamron, who manufacture slightly more
affordable lenses, print the serial number directly onto the lens -
and many of their products cost significantly less than Sony's
premium G Master lenses.
While it seems like a slight overreaction to seek damages for a
missing serial number sticker, it has meant that Musharbash is
stuck with an expensive lens that doesn't work properly. There is a
bigger issue here than his individual frustrations, though; such an
affluent, well-respected brand should be paying more attention to
the small details such as the positioning of the serial number and
how it is affixed. Sony refused to repair Musharbash's lens on the
basis that it had no serial number, but it was no fault of the
customer.
In the class action complaint document(opens in new tab) obtained
by Peta Pixel(opens in new tab), Musharbash accuses Sony of
violating California's Unfair Competition Law that prohibits any
"unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice."
Musharbash also claims that the defendant Sony makes "false and
misleading advertising claims by deceiving consumers about the
extent to which it will stand behind the product in the event of a
defect or design or manufacture is discovered".
As a class action suit, other people who have experienced this same
issue will be able to join the complaint and be represented by
Musharbash's attorney. Class action lawsuits often have more
traction than individual cases, as they affect more people. As a
global corporation, Sony will have a powerful legal team that could
defend itself against this claim but to appear sympathetic toward
its customer base, the company should definitely give consideration
to its serial number strategy. [GN]
SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: Calif. Retailers Sue Over Pricing Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Marsteller of Shankennewsdaily.com reported that a group of
independent retailers in the California market has filed a class
action case against Southern Glazer's alleging the distribution
giant is in violation of laws like the federal Robinson-Patman Act
and California Unfair Practices Act by offering covert pricing
advantages to chain customers.
The retailers include Newport Wine & Spirits, Times Market &
Liquor, Sunset Market & Liquor, Mike’s Liquor & Market, and
Santee Market & Liquor. The retailers say the prices they're paying
Southern for certain bottles exceed those paid by consumers at
chains such as Albertson's and Costco. They're seeking compensatory
and treble damages and injunctive relief from the alleged pricing
discrimination plus legal costs.
Southern Glazer responds that the retailers forfeited their right
to pursue such a class action by agreeing to the terms of its Proof
e-commerce platform, which the retailers admit they've used. The
distributor wants the claims arbitrated on an individual basis, or
failing that, to have the case moved to the Southern District of
Florida due to the Proof contracts in question. A hearing on
Southern Glazer's motion is set for December 1. [GN]
TUSIMPLE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 9, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------
WDRB.com published Globe Newswire's post that Gainey McKenna &
Egleston announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the
securities of TuSimple Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: TSP): (i) pursuant
and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with TuSimple's April 15, 2021 initial public offering ("IPO");
and/or (ii) between April 15, 2021 and October 31, 2022, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period and in
connection with the IPO effected by means of the Registration
Statement, Defendants made materially false or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) TuSimple was engaged in undisclosed related party transactions
with Hydron, a company founded by Defendant Mo Chen;
(2) TuSimple shared confidential information and/or proprietary
technology with Hydron without Board approval or informing
regulators or TuSimple shareholders;
(3) TuSimple failed to disclose the Board's internal investigation,
which commenced in July 2022, into TuSimple's ties to Hydron;
(4) the aforementioned conduct enhanced the likelihood of
regulatory scrutiny and investigatory action toward the Company;
and
(5) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of TuSimple
should contact the Firm prior to the January 9, 2023 lead plaintiff
motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
one wishes to discuss their rights or interests regarding this
class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
UNISYS CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 10, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------
Businesswire.com posted that Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
announces that the Unisys class action lawsuit seeks to represent
purchasers or acquirers of Unisys Corporation (NYSE: UIS)
securities between August 3, 2022, and November 7, 2022, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Captioned Strougo v. Unisys Corporation, No.
22-cv-04529 (E.D. Pa.), the Unisys class action lawsuit charges
Unisys and certain of its top executives with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If one suffered substantial losses and wishes to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Unisys class action lawsuit, one must provide the
information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-unisys-corporation-class-action-lawsuit-uis.html
One can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the Unisys class action lawsuit must be filed
with the court no later than January 10, 2023.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Unisys, together with its subsidiaries, operates
as an information technology services company worldwide.
The Unisys class action lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class
Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that:
(i) Unisys' 2022 financial guidance was significantly overstated;
(ii) accordingly, once this truth was revealed, it was likely that
Unisys would be required to negatively revise its 2022 financial
guidance; and
(iii) in addition to the foregoing, material weaknesses existed in
Unisys' internal control over financial reporting.
On November 7, 2022, Unisys revealed that it was lowering its
previously stated 2022 financial guidance by a significant margin
and that it would be "unable to file, without unreasonable effort
and expense and within the prescribed time period, its Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2022."
Specifically, Unisys disclosed that its audit and finance committee
"is conducting an internal investigation regarding certain
disclosure controls and procedures matters and that following the
evaluation of the results of the investigation, [Unisys] expects
that it may determine that there are one or more material
weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting, which
may result in a conclusion that [Unisys'] disclosure controls and
procedures and internal control over financial reporting are not
effective." On this news, Unisys' stock price fell by approximately
48%, damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
Unisys securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the Unisys class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff
is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Unisys class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Unisys class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff of the Unisys class action lawsuit.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for
investors last year alone - more than triple the amount recovered
by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices,
Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world
and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in
In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for
more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contacts
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
UNITED STATES: Judge Rejects Biden's LGBT Healthcare Protection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond at Reuters reports that a federal judge in Texas ruled
that President Joe Biden's administration had wrongly interpreted
an Obamacare provision as barring health care providers from
discriminating against gay and transgender people.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo ruled that a
landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2020 holding that a law
barring workplace discrimination protects gay and transgender
employees did not apply to the healthcare law.
The ruling by Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former Republican
President Donald Trump, came in a class action lawsuit by two
doctors represented by the America First Legal Foundation, set up
by former Trump White House adviser Stephen Miller.
They sued after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
said in May 2021 it would interpret Section 1557 of the Affordable
Care Act, which bars healthcare providers from discriminating on
the basis of sex, as extending to sexual orientation and gender
identity.
Kacsmaryk said Congress, when adopting the law, known as Obamacare,
in 2010, during the tenure of former Democratic President Barack
Obama, could have included "sexual orientation" or "gender
identity" in the text, but "chose not to do so."
Instead, the law incorporated the bar against discrimination "on
the basis of sex" in Title IX, a 50-year-old federal civil rights
law that bars such discrimination in education programs.
Kacsmaryk said the logic of the Supreme Court's 6-3 conclusion that
Title VII's bar against sex discrimination covered gay and
transgender workers did not lead to the same result under Title
IX's text.
"Title IX's ordinary public meaning remains intact until changed by
Congress, or perhaps the Supreme Court," Kacsmaryk wrote.
HHS and the plaintiffs' lawyers did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.
The Obama administration introduced rules in 2016 that made clear
that LGBT people would be protected under the healthcare
discrimination provision.
But those protections were reversed by a Trump-era rule finalized
in 2020. In June, the Biden administration proposed a rule to once
again enshrine such protections. [GN]
V MANUFACTURING: Basulto Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------
RAMON BASULTO, Plaintiff v. V MANUFACTURING & LOGISTICS, INC.; and
DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV34452 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 27, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiff and other similarly
situated aggrieved employees with the minimum wages to which they
were entitled for all work performed, and failure to compensate
Plaintiff and others for all hours worked pursuant to California
Labor Code.
The Plaintiff started working for VML in approximately 2020. His
latest job title was maintenance supervisor. The Plaintiff's
employment with VML ended on November 2, 2021, at which time
Plaintiff began working for VML's successor, kdc/one SoCal
Laboratories, LLC, immediately after it purchased VML.
V Manufacturing & Logistics, Inc. is a manufacturer of personal
care products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com
VGW MALTA: Agrees to Settle Gambling Class Suit for $11.75-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions.com published that VGW Malta Ltd., owner of
Chumba Casino and Luckyland Slots, has agreed to pay $11.75 million
to end a class action lawsuit claiming the company violated
Kentucky gambling laws by selling virtual coins in Luckyland and
Chumba Casino slots.
Class members include all Kentucky residents who spent $5 or more
at Chumba Casino or Luckyland Slots within 24 hours between March
17, 2017, and March 17, 2022.
Plaintiff Amy Jo Armstead filed the Chumba Casino and Lucklyand
Slots class action lawsuit on Sept. 7, 2022. Armstead states she
played Chumba Casino and Luckyland Slots games and lost more than
$7,000 doing so. She argues she and many other people were harmed
because VGW Malta violated Kentucky gambling laws designed to
protect individuals.
She explains VGW Malta owns and operates virtual casino games
through the brands Chumba Casino and Luckyland. Allegedly, virtual
games allow players to use virtual coins to play slot games.
The plaintiff states that while first-time players are given these
virtual "gold coins" for free, after the initial play, consumers
must pay real money to purchase these coins. Consumers can also
reportedly place wagers to win more gold coins.
While the company lures players in with its "free to play" model,
the games quickly charge players, according to the plaintiff,
meaning they fall under the regulations of Kentucky gambling law.
She asserts that as games of chance are illegal in Kentucky if
gambling players lose money at games of chance in the state, they
are entitled to receive their lost money within a certain
timeframe. In her Chumba Casino and Luckyland Slots class action
lawsuit, Armstead requested that the money she lost at gambling,
and the money other similarly affected consumers lost, be returned
to them.
VGW Malta has not admitted wrongdoing in response to these claims
but has agreed to settle the claims to avoid the costs and risks of
continued litigation.
Class members will be eligible for a proportional payment of the
settlement amount, allocated based on how much money they lost from
the settlement. These amounts will be determined after attorney
fees, costs, and class representative payments have been
allocated.
A payment estimator is available on the settlement website.
Class members who wish to object to or exclude themselves from the
Chumba Casino and Luckyland Slots class action lawsuit settlement
must do so by Dec. 15, 2022.
A final fairness hearing is scheduled for Jan. 9, 2023.
To receive class action settlement benefits, class members must
file a valid claim by March 6, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Class members include all Kentucky residents who spent $5 or more
at Chumba Casino or Luckyland Slots within 24 hours between March
17, 2017, and March 17, 2022.
Potential Award: Varies
Proof of Purchase: No proof of purchase is applicable
Claim Form: https://secure.vgwgamessettlement.com
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline: 03/06/2023
Case Name: Armstead v. VGW Malta Ltd, Case No. 2022-CI-00553, in
the Henderson County Circuit Court, Commonwealth of Kentucky
Final Hearing: 01/09/2023
Settlement Website: VGWGamesSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
VGW Games Settlement
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91350
Seattle, WA 98111
info@VGWGamesSettlement.com
844-633-0695
Class Counsel
Philip L Fraietta
Alec M Leslie
BURSOR & FISHER PA
Defense Counsel
Behnam Dayanim
PAUL HASTINGS LLP [GN]
VHS OF MICHIGAN: Hermiz Sues Over Illegal Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
FARID HERMIZ as personal representative of the ESTATE OF MYRA
HERMIZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. WAYNE J. MILLER; MILLER & TISCHLER, PC; VHS OF
MICHIGAN, d/b/a DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER (VHS), Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-12707-LVP-JJCG (E.D. Mich., Nov. 8, 2022) is a class action
alleges that the Defendants wrongfully collected medical bills in
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
("RICO") Act, seeking that the total amount of the illegal
collections be disgorged back.
According to the complaint, Defendant VHS has through one or more
of its several Michigan health care providers, been accepting
Medicaid payments for medical services provided to indigent
individuals and then later suing those indigent individuals and
intervening in injury litigation of those indigent individuals
seeking payment of the exact same medical services after accepting
payment for same made by Medicaid and balance billing.
The Defendants willfully or knowingly committed or conspired to
commit the aforementioned unlawful "racketeering activity" by way
of forcing Medicaid beneficiaries to pay private rates or
additional sums for medical services which were already "paid in
full" by the Medicaid program, says the suit.
VHS OF MICHIGAN, d/b/a DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER (VHS) operates as a
health care center. The Company offers burn care, trauma, critical
care, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, occupational health, oral surgery,
palliative care, and primary care nursing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian Thomas Dailey, Esq.
William D Savage, Esq.
THE DAILEY LAW FIRM, PC
63 Kercheval Avenue, Suite 215
Grosse Pointe Farms, MI 48236
Tel: (313) 640-1111
Fax: (313) 640-9999
Email: briandailey@daileylawyers.com
will@daileylawyers.com
VIRGINIA: Faces Suit Over Mismanaged Special Education Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Willis shared through 7 News that from the age of about five
or six years old, Trevor Chaplick said it was clear that his son
had intellectual and behavioral disabilities including autism and
ADHD.
The challenges were only made worse when he petitioned to get his
son transferred out of a Fairfax County Public Schools special
education program where the boy was struggling.
He said he was warned not to even try to appeal after being denied,
but the dismissal led him to uncover a disturbing trend.
"We were shocked by what we found," Chaplick said. "We found that
two-thirds of the hearing officers that preside over due process
hearings in Virginia, two-thirds, had never ruled in favor of a
disabled child in 20 years."
From 2010 to June 2021, data pulled from Chaplick's Freedom of
Information Act request to the Virginia Department of Education
showed rates in Northern Virginia that painted the same picture.
Out of 395 cases, 48% were withdrawn, 17% settled, 32% were
dismissed or ruled in favor of schools and just 0.76% were ruled in
favor of parents.
Also, in that time 83% of hearing officers never ruled in a
parent's favor.
"In what world is it acceptable for hearing officers, who are
supposed to be neutral and impartial, to never rule for a disabled
child," Chaplick asked.
The findings have led him to file a class action suit against FCPS
and the VDOE citing a failure of oversight and a conflict with the
hearing officers and the VDOE that certifies and pays them.
"They have near monopoly authority over those hearing officers.
It's like not wanting to bite the hand that feeds you," he said.
Seven News was unable to get a response from VDOE Friday night. An
FCPS said the district could not comment on pending litigation but
wrote in a statement: "We stand ready to work with anyone to
improve services and opportunities for our students."
Chaplick said the data shows that nationwide parents of children
with disabilities who initiated a due process hearing received a
favorable ruling at a rate of 30%.
Meanwhile, the rate was 1.5% for parents in Northern Virginia.
"We want the world to know what's happening here. Then, number two,
we want to reform the system," Chaplick said. [GN]
VOYAGER DIGITAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acrofan.com/Business Wire published that Scott+Scott Attorneys at
Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international securities and consumer
rights litigation firm, today announced that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Defendants Stephen Ehrlich, Gerard Hanshe,
David Brosgol, Janice Barrilleaux, Philip Eytan, Jarrett Lilien,
and Brian Brooks (collectively, "Defendants").
The action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and captioned Roberts v. Ehrlich et
al., Case No. 1:22-cv-09590, asserts claims under Sections 5,
12(a)(1),15, and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act"), as well as under the New Jersey and California
state law on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased
so-called Voyager Financial Products from January 1, 2020, and
November 9, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were
damaged thereby. The lead plaintiff's deadline in this action is
January 10, 2023.
If anyone purchased Voyager Financial Products, including Voyager
Earn Accounts and/or VGX Tokens between January 1, 2020, and
November 9, 2022, inclusive, and has suffered significant losses,
realized or unrealized, one is encouraged to contact Scott+Scott
attorney Sean Masson at (212) 519-0522, or via email at
smasson@scott-scott.com, for more information.
Voyager is a financial services company that generates revenue
through cryptocurrency trading, lending, borrowing, the sale of its
unregistered securities, as well as engaging in proprietary
trading.
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the
Securities Act by selling non-exempt securities without registering
them. The complaint alleges that Defendants participated in
Voyager's failure to register Voyager Financial Products. After
plaintiffs and class members purchased Voyager Financial Products,
the complaint alleges that Voyager suspended withdrawals from its
platform.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline
The lead plaintiff's deadline in this action is January 10, 2023.
If anyone wishes to serve as lead plaintiff, one must move the
Court no later than January 10, 2022. Any member of the proposed
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel
of their choice or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of
the proposed class.
If anyone wishes to discuss this action or has any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
the plaintiff's counsel, Sean Masson of Scott+Scott, at (212)
519-0522 or via email at smasson@scott-scott.com.
About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the
United States and is actively litigating several cryptocurrency
cases. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals,
and other entities worldwide, with offices in New York, London,
Amsterdam, Connecticut, California, Ohio, and Virginia.
Contacts
Sean Masson
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
230 Park Ave, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169
(212) 519-0522
smasson@scott-scott.com [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***